Orogun01

GTA 3 was for the XBox and PS2, Shemue was a Dreamcast game about 2 years before. It would be hard to tell how much or if it had any influence on the development of GTA, but as it does have precedence I tend to give it the credit; even though what you say is true. I could however see it as both having simultaneously defined two different approaches to open world gameplay, both having inspired many successor. Of course GTA successors seem more uninspired, repetitive and violent, worthy of the title of GTA clone. Whereas Shenmue legacy has gone understated even though it had a deeper level of interaction within it's "sandbox" which has now become commonplace.

Basically yeah. GTA basically created a genre, GTA3 specifically, and that genre became synonymous with with GTA, and thus GTA became a well known brand name and achieved mythical status. A status not necessarily undeserved, mind you, as I thought all their games were quite good with the exception of GTA4 (can't speak for GTA5 since I haven't played it). It's the same thing with CoD or Halo. Once the franchise gains enough mainstream popularity, it reaches critical mass, then it become a self-sustaining hype machine. At that point, it almost doesn't matter if future titles are good or not, as once the hype machine is in full effect it's very difficult to derail, whether from external or internal forces. Usually once a game series catches fire like that and becomes a popular trend, the franchise will keep raking it in until the trend burns itself out and people move on to the next thing. I would say that Shenmue created the genre and GTA3 just made it about violence. Still I guess the GTA, the COD, and the Halos can be proof of separation between discerning gamers and casual ones, so I'm not so angry about them being successful (though I do get a bit mad when someone credits them with innovation, as is the case in point ) In the end its just evidence of the industry's growth and of how badly managed it is, capitalist nowadays expect opportunities to come to their door, knock, wait for them to answer and then do all the work.

Right, because all those women fantasies of half naked men have them wearing a shirt and no pants, not the other way around. It is not taboo but it not polite to stare, however when the girl fails to wear a bra (see pic at the top) I believe its fair game.

He's probably tired of the "it was all brilliant and then EA came and DESTROYED EVERYTHING" attitude. As he obviously knows better where decisions have come from and what has been the pressure of lack of it placed on the studio. If you ever need evidence to support this just refer people to ME and JE, BW's game releases prior to joining with EA. They were already making hybrid RPGs and trying to have a more cinematic experience. Well I'm talking specifically about the decision to make a game in 11 months. Ok, that one could have gone three different ways: 1-"EA sends word from up high that they want a next year release to fill in some quarterly goal" 2-"EA ask BW if they can deliver the next game within a year, maybe they offer a bonus as an incentive and BW says yes" 3-"BW told EA they would have the game done in a year"

He's probably tired of the "it was all brilliant and then EA came and DESTROYED EVERYTHING" attitude. As he obviously knows better where decisions have come from and what has been the pressure of lack of it placed on the studio. If you ever need evidence to support this just refer people to ME and JE, BW's game releases prior to joining with EA. They were already making hybrid RPGs and trying to have a more cinematic experience.

Which means that in the coming years they will produce a cult classic with no patch support or sequel

There's also no proof that either of those decisions was objectively bad. The implementation let a lot to be desired in my book, so I just decided that BW's games weren't targeted at myself anymore and didn't get ME3. I am cautiously looking forward to DA:I though.

Your evidence doesn't support your conclusion, maybe BW is just are bad at making games or maybe they just chew more than they could handle. I see no proof of EA stranglehold on game companies, don't get me wrong there are still plenty of reasons to hate them. From changing established IP to fit more popular genres to wantonly buying and closing studios. But so far there is no evidence that word came from up high that ME was going to be transformed into a shooter and that DA was going to have more action, those decisions rest on BW's shoulders.

We have some lawyers here in the forum, I have a question: Can we prosecute the President?

Weird, I just finished reading that article before checking the forums. I'd say Gabe is going to find it difficult to convert developer to Linux, although I this comes as no surprise as he has in the past criticized Microsoft because of Direct and praised OpenGL. I think he just likes the idea of open source.

Today I began my holiday week in between school terms by getting drunk on Scotch, I burned myself cooking and I'm doing the Monster Mash. I will do the Macarena when I'm stone cold drunk.

Well, yeah. If the person expects a game to be garbage and hears, reads, or sees nothing to the contrary, then it does indeed make no sense whatsoever to go ahead and buy the game then suffer all the way through it. When trying to understand games as a product in an economics sense I find that they are much alike drugs. A junkie that needs a fix will switch to a lower quality product, same with games. Both are goods that while not indispensable their demand matches that of essential goods. Sure, but that analogy only works if there's a shortage of the higher quality product, or if the lower quality product is significantly cheaper than the higher quality product. At the moment I see no shortage of good games and I don't see them being more expensive, in fact, they sometimes tend to be less expensive. Once you consider that we are talking about "hardcore" (addicts) gamers, they are likely to burn through releases fairly fast. I wonder if their complaints isn't so much about quality but rather about quantity and replay value?

Well, yeah. If the person expects a game to be garbage and hears, reads, or sees nothing to the contrary, then it does indeed make no sense whatsoever to go ahead and buy the game then suffer all the way through it. When trying to understand games as a product in an economics sense I find that they are much alike drugs. A junkie that needs a fix will switch to a lower quality product, same with games. Both are goods that while not indispensable their demand matches that of essential goods. That's an interesting perspective but I'm not sure I agree with the analogy around drugs. Are you suggesting gaming can be as addictive as drugs? I know there are some gaming addicts but we are talking about "normal" gamers like the people who frequent these forums Anything that causes dopamine to release is potentially addictive, I find the analogy apt when trying to explain inconsistent behavior such as hating a game and playing it to completion. I also realize that its insufficient to explain the entirety of the behavior of games as goods, ultimately games have a limited field of distribution and even more limited of interaction. By which I mean that so far you can only get games in 2 formats, via 3 options (renting, buying, pirating) and that they cannot be just played as background noise as one would a TV since games require all of your senses. There are movies that are more enjoyable to watch on TV and there are those that are made for the big screen but lose their appeal when played on TV. Which affects the opinions on said films, games on the other hand can only be experienced one way and said limitation might affect how the buyer perceives the game. To put in an example; if I'm forced to see an M. Night Shyamalan movie on the silver screen I will probably be very pissed. Whereas if I just play it as background noise on the TV whilst i'm multitasking I might enjoy it more since my attention is divided and I have lower expectations.

Well, yeah. If the person expects a game to be garbage and hears, reads, or sees nothing to the contrary, then it does indeed make no sense whatsoever to go ahead and buy the game then suffer all the way through it. When trying to understand games as a product in an economics sense I find that they are much alike drugs. A junkie that needs a fix will switch to a lower quality product, same with games. Both are goods that while not indispensable their demand matches that of essential goods.

If everything is art, then nothing is art. I actually agree with Volourn on this. The quickest way through the semantics is to say everything can be art. But then you have good and bad art. That way you're knocking the distinction off a pedestal where it shouldn't be. The distinction of good art and bad art is one matter in the discussion, more relevant is the difference between fine arts and applied arts. Also, not everything is art because of verisimilitude. Art is representative of something, it can be as abstract as a concept or shape or as definite as a photograph. Things that don't emulate, that lack similitude are not art.

So Big Rigs Over the Road Racing is art? Putting in the minimum, phoned-in effort masquerading as "art" for the sake of pursuing profit is significantly different from something made specifically with an artistic vision and purpose (i.e. Journey.) Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times. Since you brought it up, what do you consider to be the requisites to qualify a medium as art?

This is a touch too sensible for my tastes. I love how on the one hand, games are art and BioWare are artists and they have heart and soul and they really know how to write characters that speak to you, and they are transformative experiences!!! But on the other hand, I guess if you do some voodoo demon-nerd-wizard algebra sorcery and divide up your life into discrete parts of time and equate them into a dollar amount then all that other stuff doesn't matter because hey, you got your money's worth didn't you? Sheesh, what more do you people want?!? Games, like most major film releases, are commercial art. They represent a view, they can have depth, a message and integrity in delivering that message, but there are also constraints on the process of creating them and on the types of art/product that can be released. They exist with one foot in the art world and one in the world of consumer products. The validity of games as art is another matter entirely worthy of its own thread (I think we once had one) I would say that BW writing style focuses more around the companions than the overall themes of their story. In fact their stories usually end up being weak whilst most companion interactions are what gets praised. As for games being art, I've settle on the fact that most game art falls under the category of being applied art and that everyone seems oblivious to judge games artistically for what makes them art, which is the mechanics.

Justin Bieber sells a lot of records. 'Nough said.

I would put DA2 at the same level of quality of AP, whereas I enjoyed AP immensely I didn't like DA2. I can however, conceive of someone else having enjoyed it for the experience that it was.

Who's now in control of the Bioware division after Greg and Ray left?

We'll have to agree to disagree around whether Russia's attempts to broker a peaceful solution make sense in regard to Syria. It may seem like I am flip-flopping on the armed intervention in Syria but I have followed many new perspectives and I fail to see how at least allowing the Russians to get Assad to destroy his Chemical weapons is a bad idea? I'm not a great chess player, but you must be one lousy chess player! Because it's not good if the chemical weapons are removed, leaving Russia strongarming Eastern Europe, and resurgent in the Mideast when the US is apparently backsliding and impotent. Because Russia is presently under the control of the most rapacious oligarchical kleptocrats in human history. As oby would confirm, if oby was actually Russian, and could remember and be consistent in her spelling and grammatical errors. I consider Russia at this moment to be a necessary evil, only to keep the US and their NATO lackeys at bay. Also, how much different are their "rapacious oligarchical kleptocrats" from ours?

Because "it provokes the desire, but takes away the performance" so its commonly held that a man too drunk cannot physically commit rape.

You forgot that he was a liar.

If someone is so drunk they can't made informed decisions then they can't consent to sex. Exactly how much alcohol that is varies from person to person. When in doubt, keep your pants on. It may be a thing of misreading signals, a common trope in courtship is buying a girl a drink which if she accept its indicative of her interest. So it is implied that they have taken the first steps towards sex, if she however becomes drunk beyond cognition then all that the guy is left is with the initial implication. Something that some may interpret as consent and have no doubt in mind. It is wrong when someone misunderstands and thinks that they are entitled because they bought a drink, or that they willfully take advantage of a situation. However, I feel a better preventive measure would be to not drink with strangers you don't want to **** in the near future.