TheGorilla

@Morrow: I totally understand where you're coming from. The problem is that it's just really, really, really hard to get one type of control system working perfectly. Adding a second one would be way more expensive, time consuming, and create some confusion over how the game is supposed to be played. Just look at Fallout, its third person camera, while kind of cool, is totally terrible compared to games that focus exclusively on third person. The basic design of the world also changes depending on the kind of view the game has, things like detail on objects etc.

@heatDrive88 said:

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, be it praise or monetary, but you're taking everything about that original statement out of context and it's complete and utter bullshit. Video games are still a business, and like all businesses, need to be in the business of making a profit. Yes, it's true, a corporation or a company isn't a person. But it consists of people. A business is built up of people, and that business and it's people deserves it's dues for the role it has to play in making video games a sustainable, profitable, and everlasting venture.

As jaded as your opinions can get about companies like EA or Activision, games are in the business of making money. Your enthusiasm for the art and the majesty of designing and building video games is appreciable, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think the the business of video games only consists of employing "marketing tricks", and therefore is dumb and/or meaningless.

So maybe before you go off and insult an entire swath of the workforce that takes some pride in knowing that their actions and hard work had a hand in the business of video games, you should think twice. You know. Before you say something really fucking stupid.

lol, you really ran with my comment in a weird direction. I'm as pro-profit as you can get. I'm the kind of nut who is disgusted by people who are disgusted by video game business policies like on disc DLC and such. I have no problem with EA or Activision for anything they've done. And I think companies are fantastic and wonderful. My stomach turns when I hear people hoping a company like EA will go out of business.

My one problem is with the idea of assigning all credit for a game to that company instead of the specific individuals who created it. I want Paramount to make a massive profit with the new Star Trek movie, but I want the credit for the movie to go to JJ Abrams, the writers, actors, and producers. I don't want those people to be known simply as "Paramount" or "Bad Robot." I want them to be known as specific individuals. I think that's best for everyone in the movie industry and I think the games industry could be helped by similar thinking. I think this actually helps people get over their anti-business bullshit. If we all started referring to the individuals in charge of these games instead of more or less faceless companies like "EA" people would hopefully be less likely to freak out and get angry over business decisions.

The "marketing tricks" comment refers only to getting gamers to talk about companies and not specific talent. I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to say the entire "business of video games only consists of employing 'marketing tricks.'" I was trying to explain why I think it's silly that gamers act like a studio is the same studio over a 15 year period. Often times the talent changes so dramatically that it just seems absurd to act as if it's the same people making the games over the lifetime of a company, but many people seem to act that way. That doesn't mean the studio is any worse, they could be better than ever, but they are still largely a different group and not the same people responsible for the companies previous work.

I also don't see how I really insulted anyone. If you get insulted when someone suggests that we should try and give more credit to specific individuals on a project then... well, then you be crazy, son! Go ahead and disagree, but your post reads as if you are pissed as all shit.

No point in calling people "really fucking stupid" in bold lettering on the internet either. I don't think anyone's ever proven their point or sounded sane that way.

I guess my point boils down to this: I don't know what Irrational Games means. I know who Ken Levine is. I know a bit about who Scott Sinclair is, and other people who've been influential at the studio. And I know there are many, many wonderful people who work there, but Irrational Games is a meaningless term without knowing who some of those individuals are. My respect for the names I know working there are what gives me respect for the names I don't know working there. The company title isn't what makes me care, it's the individuals. I hope the company makes a killer profit, and I think the best way to do that is to make me recognize people I trust, rather than associating the legal entity with the work, associate the individuals within that legal entity with the work.

I HOPE I MADE SOME SENSE AND DON'T SOUND LIKE A TOTAL LUNATIC TO YOU AGAIN.

companies don’t make great games - in fact companies don’t do anything at all because they only exist in a legal sense.

I love this. I'm sick of the idea of a company getting the credit for a game. That just means no human being is getting any credit. Blizzard can get credit for all the Diablo games, but I'm sure very different teams were behind those games. So the idea of crediting the company so that the whole team is recognized is silly. It's just a marketing trick.

A ton of people work on a movie to get it made. Especially for really big movies. But we only bother to remember a few names for each film. That's the most that can be expected. Games are no different. If we are going to credit actual human beings instead of dumb, meaningless company names we have to pick a few people at most on a project.

Most creative works involve many, many people but there is one central figure we choose to recognize above all others. That's just the way of it. If someone doesn't like the idea that some of their work might get more directly credited to their boss they should get out of the field. As Don Draper said on Mad Men "That's what the money is for!"

Captain Walker from Spec Ops: The Line. No question. I've never seen such good character development in a video game.

The people that said characters from Asura's Wrath frighten me. It was a good ridiculous game with a silly story, but god damn those are not great characters.

WHAAAT?!

I kind of feel sorry for Apple. I don't know what they can do to make me really want a new phone. The iPhone 4 was too big a leap and the best tech product I've ever owned. After LTE I can't think of anything else I want. A 4 inch screen might be too big, I'm happy with 3.5. I'll get this but I'm really curious if there is anywhere else to go except faster chips.

Oh, the rumor came from Kotaku? No wonder it was bullshit.

Great! Now no one will play this probably shitty game.

@wilsonk: I believe he signed the deal something crazy like 4 years ago. Indie games were in a very different place then.

@dvorak: The patch is supposed to fix all that.

@Omegus said:

@TheGorilla said:

Probably the only reason Steam Linux is a thing is because there are a few people at Valve who love it and want to do it. The only Linux games out there are going to be Valve games and a few indies. Most games are not going to be ported. It's not worth it financially.

I don't understand why Linux users seem to always want to believe that Linux is one developer away from world domination.

Steam on Mac is a nice little thing with a few games for it. Steam on Linux is going to be a nice little thing with a few less games for it.

Well thank you for generalizing linux users like that. Thats ignorant. Have you ever had any linux distro on your computer? From the comments you decided to burst out with instead of researching ill go with no. I have been a Linux user since 2010. I don't know how good or bad Linux was before. But when I tried Ubuntu 10.10 when I first started I thought "wow I can customize my whole OS, for free. Oh look more free software, games and great community." I dual booted until I bought my new custom rig from Ibuypower.com. At that point I said "Let's buy a computer with out windows and ill do a fresh install of Ubuntu." I saved almost 200$ on the computer . My computer has at least 60+ games on it.

So what If there are not as many Linux users as windows users. Not all Linux are "Super Nerds, Microsoft Haters and what have you." In fact I don't hate Microsoft I think they are smart for making great money on new technology and sucking people in to keep buying garbage versions of their OS that are riddled with Malware, Spyware, Trojans, Worms, Blue Screens of Death. Heres another Fact for you Windows is the 78% of all computers out Now. Linux is 84% of all servers out now. Next time you play a game with EA or Ubisoft or Squareenix or what have you and your running your mouth about Linux remember what that server runs on. I'm going to play Minecraft and Trine 2 ....you know the Linux versions.

lol, I don't see how I was generalizing Linux users so much aside from one joke, but I guess you kinda proved that jokes point. I've setup and run Ubuntu on my computer before and I rarely even use Windows, but I will never understand why Linux users get so excited about their OS. All operating systems are pretty much garbage compared to the bullshit nonsense holodeck future I want to live in.

I really don't know how to respond to your post. This is where my obnoxious desire to start internet arguments and get the last word in becomes a real pain. You wrote an entire paragraph about how you switched to Linux in order to support your statement that I'm ignorant. Why did you even call me ignorant? - because I said Steam on Linux will not cause major publishers, like Ubisoft who has thought about stopping PC development for years now, to suddenly start developing for Linux? - or because I made a joke about how intensely passionate many Linux users are? - or because I said Steam on Linux was cool but would probably end up being less important than Steam on Mac?

@Omegus said:

In fact I don't hate Microsoft I think they are smart for making great money on new technology and sucking people in to keep buying garbage versions of their OS that are riddled with Malware, Spyware, Trojans, Worms, Blue Screens of Death. Heres another Fact for you Windows is the 78% of all computers out Now. Linux is 84% of all servers out now. Next time you play a game with EA or Ubisoft or Squareenix or what have you and your running your mouth about Linux remember what that server runs on.

Are you aware of how crazy this sounds? First off I don't see how I was 'running my mouth about Linux' when I was simply saying I didn't think Steam on Linux was going to be a "big" deal. I said it would be nice, but implied I didn't think it would revolutionize the industry in any way. I could always be wrong, that's the point of making predictions. You say what you think will happen, other people say what they think will happen, and then we wait and see what actually happens. The original poster said what he thinks will happen, I said what I think will happen, and then you called me ignorant and explained how you like your Linux computer more than windows. As to your facts, they might well be right, I don't know and I don't really care, but no one is going to take them seriously unless you cite your sources, especially when you have such a clearly strong bias.