Nepenthe

Somehow, I'm leery of using a single company for my search engineing and social networking.

No no.. He's a lawyer.. he should do it via Origami.. I mean, he should have plenty of documents and lawbooks to utilise... Hence the barbecue. What are we cooking? BTW, paper makes for poor taste. Can't you smell what the Nep is cooking?

There was a cover system in ME1? Joking aside, I don't think I used much cover in the game, even on insanity, so considering it's optional nature, I'd consider it a small problem and doubt that removing it would have made the game better...

Would it be easier to render your professional opinion through the medium of flower arranging? That would at least be novel... I prefer barbequing.

Played the new L.A. Noire dlc. OK mission, but either I missed some clue, or the lie/evidence logic is even further out than usual in one of the "interviews". I did get a bunch of new cars unlocked, though.

Well, I think that Wals is onto something, but as usual, the less you know, the easier it is to formulate a clear opinion. I don't have the time or inclination to write a good long paragraph on the matter, never mind the 200 pages it would require.

Console shooters were doing just fine without hiding behind crates. Halo being one of the more popular examples. Exceptions to the rule kind of hint that the rule does not actually exist. Or that's there's something significantly wrong with its conception as a rule. Games playing similar is rarely the fault of a single popular mechanic. That's usually more deliberate follow the leader. Games playing like Gears of War because they want people to like them the same as Gears of War, not because they both use cover. Related to the "kids these days" from earlier today is: [All games are doing thing X that I don't like] because of consoles.

The parrots are now here.

I like asparagus too. The stuff in olive oil is just brilliant. Personally, I think non-extradition of citizens is a good concept, most people should be tried at their country of residence. (Barring war criminals)

I don't think you guys got rid of the parrots in time.

Not particularly.

Frankly, I think they were right. Exhibit A, Modern Warfare 2 - an excretion that sold indeed millions.

Had a job interview, was going really well until at last minute said something that got totally misunderstood and made me seem an arrogant **** (I know what you're gonna say, and I disagree ). Think I managed to defuse it, but still... Well, I'll hear towards the end of the week if they send me to the psych eval.

So if you have somebody put in a sink in your house, and then that sink leaks because they didn't put in the caulking, it's not their fault? in the words of their attorny which you seem to be parroting Here's the thing, that insubordination and breach of duties still would have the same effect (breach of contract) which would deny them the contracted bonus pay that you're so eager to instantly hand over to a pair of slimeballs. Also, This: tends to point to them desiring to use their abilities within their own company to promote their future bosses. Here's the funny thing, I'm digging through the docs on Kotaku, and have yet to find that article where EVERYONE says that "OMG THEY TOTALLY LOCKED US IN THE ROOM!" Only thing I could find was that they were placed in detention (effectively) with the understanding that "If you don't co-operate fully, you're being insubordinate" which would lead to their contract being broken and they'd not get their bonuses. You're not one to criticise anyone for parroting, since that's what you are doing with Acti's position. I've looked at both sides of the argument and I find EA's explanation of "joke" for the post above to be a lot more credible than the conspiratorial alternative. Certainly as it appears to be the sum of evidence to support Acti's claims. I haven't looked at this in a while, but IIRC the position is that ex-IW are claiming breach of contract and Acti's position is that due to "the conspiracy" they didn't have to follow the contract any longer. This means that the burden of proof lies squarely at Acti, and I've seen absolutely nothing that would convince me to the degree required for a final judgment. And that's my professional opinion on the matter, IMO any negative bias I have against Activision has been borne out of their handling this case, but I'd be the first to admit that people do not acknowledge their biases. To summarise, I don't know if what Acti claims took place or not, it may well have, but I don't think they have enough to prove it - I think they're trying to force a settlement more beneficial for them, but I don't think it's working.

I think the aim is to make egomaniacal dilettantes think twice the next time.

Glad Vol showed up when I got tired of going in circles. :D

Apart from being a douchebag, you mean?

I haven't seen anyone involved in the case even claim any of the things you mention here, never mind prove them. Personally, the most convincing argument I have still heard is that Acti wanted out of the deal that would have given Westpella the right to decide what games they make (ie. not be a cash cow for Acti), and spent enough resources on it to conjure enough material for them to spin as something sinister. Since, if the MoU exists, Westpella would have had no reason to split Acti, they already would've had the power they have now at EA.

Yep, planning to breach a contract intentionally to profit from it is definitely not legal. But now we are again at another aspect of the case.

Just because the claims aren't apparently baseless without a trial, don't make it so. Also, EA sniping =/= what you said earlier. So I mis-spoke slightly, but there is still enough evidence for the entire thing to move forward, which is more than most are willing to admit. Either way, it still is a point that that's what a union could do (the IW manipulation) within a company, even if they're just trying to prevent things like Team Bondi. The difference between a company trying to hire key staff from another company, and said staff sabotaging their current/previous company, is more than slight. As in, the first is both legally and morally acceptable, the latter is not.

Just because the claims aren't apparently baseless without a trial, don't make it so. Also, EA sniping =/= what you said earlier. Also a laughably idealistic views about how courts work. Litigation takes time and money, something your employer is generally going to have more available than you. Even I (as a lawyer) belong to a union just so that I can offload any potential cases to the union lawyers instead of struggling with them myself. We don't even have any kind of collective bargaining (for lawyers), so that's essentially the only benefit I get. Well, apart from the credit card with the pretty picture nobody else can get - used to work really well on barmaids, too...

Completely agree. There are some movies where I basically have to wince every time the female lead is on screen (because they are so gorgeous, there are others where they are so bad, but I digress)... I've somehow managed to forget some, but Romeo Must Die and Desperado are definitely on that list.

... says Activision, who made, what, billions, by sacking them? Let's have some source criticism, please.

But with a fear of being blacklisted by every publisher I don't see anyone within the industry standing up for an union, mostly people who get fed up and leave. Probably the closest thing the industry will get to a union is the actual company employees banding together to do stuff. Yeah, kind of like Infinity Ward.

What, so that their corrupt politicians could funnel large sums into secret offshore bank accounts and waste whatever is left? I don't think Greece ranks too high on the kleptocracy index. They're spending the money on bribing the electorate, instead.