Raven10's forum posts

#1 Edited by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

@aperfektspiral: Disney Corp did not create Mickey Mouse. Ub Iwerks and Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse. Both of those individuals have been dead for nearly half a century. There are those in this country that like to refer to corporations as people. Those people are rich businessmen far more interested in their own personal gain than the good of the average person. A corporation cannot create anything. A person creates things. What right should a corporation have to retain a copyright on something made by someone who has been dead for decades? That person is dead. Their children are dead. And in this specific case, the last remaining member of Disney's family with a major stake in the company died a couple years ago. No one associated with the man in any way is benefiting from the current copyright law. And Ub's family never had any ownership of the company in the first place. If the actual creator is alive and benefiting from something he created then fine. Or even if his children are benefiting from it. But barely any of these games are still under the ownership of their original creators, or even the original founders of the companies they were employed at. No one who works at EA now worked there 30 years ago. No one with a large stake in the company today helped found the company in the 80's. The same is true of almost all major companies. The only exception is Ubisoft which remains owned by the brothers who founded the company.

#2 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

@korwin said:

@raven10 said:

@ripelivejam said:

@kubqo: blast your quads

Anyway i don't think this is that much different compared to dying light which quite a few raged over. To play this game (at least decently or at ps4 level fidelity) it still appears you need upper echelon hardware. Seems like barring some cool indie games and pc only titles quad core, 8gb RAM, and 2-4gb vram or more (!) Is required for entry. Feels like im already floundering just having upgraded my system a few months ago.

Upper echelon? You could build a PC that meets the recommended specs for around $750. Hell, my 5+ year old PC meets the minimum requirements. As far as quad core and 8 GB of RAM being required, the consoles have 8 cores and 8 GB of RAM. They use around 2 GB of that for the OS, which is far less than many people's PCs. Anyone who thought that they were going to get away with anything less than the specs you listed this generation doesn't know what they are doing. I would expect by this time next year that specs will be even higher. An 8800, which was the baseline GPU for much of the last generation wasn't even released until a year after the Xbox 360 shipped. Going by that, I expect the 980 is going to probably be your point of entry in a couple of years.

TIL a sub $200 GPU from 2 and a half years ago is upper echelon hardware :P

I can't even imagine what a $3000 Titan Z is if a 660 is upper echelon.

#3 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

@kubqo: blast your quads

Anyway i don't think this is that much different compared to dying light which quite a few raged over. To play this game (at least decently or at ps4 level fidelity) it still appears you need upper echelon hardware. Seems like barring some cool indie games and pc only titles quad core, 8gb RAM, and 2-4gb vram or more (!) Is required for entry. Feels like im already floundering just having upgraded my system a few months ago.

Upper echelon? You could build a PC that meets the recommended specs for around $750. Hell, my 5+ year old PC meets the minimum requirements. As far as quad core and 8 GB of RAM being required, the consoles have 8 cores and 8 GB of RAM. They use around 2 GB of that for the OS, which is far less than many people's PCs. Anyone who thought that they were going to get away with anything less than the specs you listed this generation doesn't know what they are doing. I would expect by this time next year that specs will be even higher. An 8800, which was the baseline GPU for much of the last generation wasn't even released until a year after the Xbox 360 shipped. Going by that, I expect the 980 is going to probably be your point of entry in a couple of years.

#4 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

@jesus_phish: That has been the case but this past year may have changed that. One of the biggest flops of last year was The Expendables 3, and a large portion of that was attributed to the switch from an R to a PG-13 rating. Meanwhile, Lucy was probably the second biggest surprise hit of the year after Guardians of the Galaxy and that was rated R. Another surprise hit was Gone Girl which again was rated R. Overall, last year was the worst for the domestic box office in half a decade and a number of popular PG-13 series saw their revenue plummet. So I actually wouldn't be surprised at all if this was an R rated film that attempts to go after the same crowd as Lucy. While you might miss out on the young teen fans, I think the majority of the fanbase is at least 17 and PG-13 sci-fi films have been crashing and burning left and right for the past couple of years. So I would bet on an R rated release.

#5 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

@lunnington: Dan and Drew played this during one of their Playstation Magazine features. Don't remember the name of the game or which episode, but if you really want to find it I would watch those.

@victormih: It is one of the Tex Murphy games almost certainly. Dunno which one. Just look them up.

#6 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

(the fuck is up with these forums? My original post didn't even get posted...)

I think she's a talented, well-rounded actress which you would very much need for a character like Motoko who can often be quite complex so I'm not too worried about casting. It's the fucking director that scares me. Nothing he has done fills me with the least bit of confidence. That said, I'm hoping...praying to the gods I don't believe in that you don't try to tackle something like GITS without some sort of reverence for the source material and a decent budget to match. But then again, this is Hollywood so...man, I dunno.

For all of his (numerous and far reaching) faults, Rupert Sanders is a massive anime fan. I don't need to know anything about him to know that. Simply watch Snow White and the Huntsman. The movie is basically a combination of Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke. The sequence with the forest God/spirit is lifted almost shot for shot from the nearly identical sequence in Princess Mononoke. And the spirit itself looks almost identical to the one in that film as well. Plus the story is about a princess who uses her ability to charm animals to free her peaceful kingdom from the clutches of a warlike nation bent on the destruction of nature. It includes a warrior queen and her bumbling male general as the main villains. I was surprised there was no Joe Hishashi soundtrack going on in the background it so deeply stole from those two films. So reverence to the source material should not be a problem.

As for Scarlett, she's got the action rep from Lucy and the Marvel movies, and the philosophical/meaning of life rep from Her and Under Her Skin. She's basically played all parts of this role in other films. I honestly couldn't have named a better actress. As far as her not being Japanese, well the whole point of a Hollywood remake is to take a foreign film and reframe it as an American one. That is what I always expected it would be. If they want to keep an oriental setting they could set it in China. Big audience there with an affinity for films about robots (I know she's an android) and the nation has the know how and finances to believably be able to create a society like the one in GITS.

The thing I'm most curious about is are we going to get a more humorous take like the show/manga or an ultra serious, hyper-violent take like in the movies? Personally I'd prefer dark and violent, but that would probably be a harder sell. That said GITS did directly inspire The Matrix which was a violent, sexual, R-rated philosophy course so it could happen.

#7 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

@cornbredx: The interesting case for me is with games made by companies that no longer exist and where the ownership rights are murky at best. Even if some dude did pay a small sum in an auction for those rights, he or she isn't the creator of the game. If the game is still being sold by its original creator(as is the case with a lot of old EA PC games) then there is a fair moral argument against it.

The thing is, copyright laws are stacked in favor of large corporations. When US copyright law started, a work could be copyrighted for a maximum of 28 years. Under those rules, many of these games would now be in the public domain, and those whose original owners went bankrupt would have been in the public domain for over a decade. Over time, though, Disney has lobbied congress, turning 28 years into 75 years in 1976 and 75 years into 120 years in 1998. The goal of copyright initially was to give creators a chance to profit from their creations, while eventually giving the work to the public to possess freely. In some nations, especially communist ones, this is still the case.

There are reasons to follow modern copyright laws, mainly that you'll be arrested if you don't. But don't for a minute feel morally obligated to uphold copyrights that are more than 3 decades old. That was never the point of copyright law and just because Disney paid members of congress off to change the federal law, and to have it override a variety of State and Local laws that were much less far reaching, doesn't make it right.

#8 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

I think the timing of this release sucks. Blaming EA for the timing and calling them tone deaf is silly. They obviously began work on this game a couple years ago. There's no way they could have known how the social climate surrounding police militarization would be today. Is delaying the game even further a good idea? That's hard to know since the public perception could either improve or worsen depending on any number of factors.

I will say that EA needs to be very careful about how they market this game. A poorly worded answer during an interview could easily sink this game with the way things are. If I was them I would not be putting any developers in an interview setting pre-release. They need to create very targeted commercials that put the focus on the fact that the criminals in this game are awful people and that the cops are not above the law. If that isn't how the story was written they need to either change it or position the story as a commentary on how society is and not how it should be.

#9 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

Works on PS3 and Vita. Don't have a PS4 to try but it's been mostly working on those two systems for a couple days now.

#10 Posted by Raven10 (1947 posts) -

@mbradley1992: I'd highly suggest NOT playing on heroic for Halo 2. There are sequences towards the end of that game that are a bitch to get through solo and the Brutes just aren't fun to fight. I enjoyed Halo 1,3,Reach, ODST, and 4 on Normal and they are all not exceptionally hard on heroic, especially with a co-op partner. But 2 is just frustrating and not fun. I never even finished it until years after it came out. Blew through it on easy just to complete the story.