Amentep

Thats one of the campy things I love best about those 90's action movies. I present you with Commando: Hes firing a belt fed M60 and you may notice ~20 rounds hanging by his left hand. He killed about 50 people with those 20 rounds. I think this falls under the cinematic "rule of cool". Seeing Arnie dispatch faceless baddies = cool Watching Arnie reload = not cool

Hahah, well I can admire overacting in certain situations (sometimes its fun to see actors chewing the scenery).

I don't think Dredd has much of a life in the comics outside being a judge (mind you, haven't read a lot of Dredd, so...). I don't think that's the case with the other judges, but particular to Dredd. That said I didn't care about Stalone losing the helmet. The biggest problem, IMO, with the movie was that its predicated on a lot of what I'd call continuity pieces (Dredd's "origin", his "family", the villain taking away things that are important to him) without the context for why they matter to Dredd. The plot would have made an okay third film; it was a disastrous first film, IMO.

I find the "1s & 0s" argument interesting. There's an area in art about taking something that exists (and which you may or may not own the rights too) and being transformative of it so that a new and unique item of the artist's making is created and I almost feel that this is where the argument is going except that when someone says something like "its just 1s & 0s that if decoded the right way would make a game" there's never an explanation of what other use there would be to downloading that particular set of 1s & 0s other than decoding the way to make a game. I'm not sure that digital piracy really falls under property rights (since there isn't a physical entity to have a right to) and I think that's why there's such a struggle to understand what it means by many people. Instead of taking a physcial disc, some electrons are inconvenienced. Some intellectual rights, copyrights, distribution rights, maybe even patents might be violated though. In some ways the Internet has opened a number of issues that I think our society and our laws are struggling to conceptualize. I recall a time a few years ago when a few companies got in trouble for appropriating art from people's deviant art accounts and using them for their own posters. The companies actually said "we found them online and assumed fair use". The end result of these were that the companies were in the wrong, but there was little the creators could do to prevent it from happening once they posted the work online other than close the barn doors after the horses were gone.

This is an interesting way of putting it, it'd be similar to everyone in the US being able to play a game except people in the Dakotas because there wasn't enough people there to make it worth distributing the product. Thanks. Forgotten Realms, D&D all of that are IPs belonging to TSR and their successor companies; I can't think of any work done for TSR that wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been done by an employee, a work-for-hire, or a licensee and most big companies don't let total rights to their properties go to other companies. Was there something specific you were referring to? The only iify thing I can think of were the rights to the cartoon which are still with Marvel Animation, but the use in BG II I think would fall under fair use / parody. At any rate even if you're correct and I'm not thinking of something obvious that was questionable in use, I'd think the "piracy" in such a scenario would be on the part of Bioware, not on the part of the (unknowing) customer. I think the comparison comes up because of the idea that (a) some creator isn't getting paid for their work (or in the case of games, some creator won't be paid for future work because this game flopped since everyone pirated it) and (b) in the US at least the people who pirate have legitimate ways to purchase the product but choose not to procure via that method. I don't like some of the draconian measures in place myself; and with the recent rumors about the next gen consoles - well I have great worries about companies moving to a "you have to be online to validate ownership of a game" model. Where I live its currently impossible to have any kind of internet connection other than dial-up (I happen to live in a giant ass gap between various service areas) and this kind of model would remove me from gaming at all.

I tried up front to say that I'm not making a value judgement about piracy, but I'm trying to understand the rationale for "I want X" becoming "I'll pirate X". I see in my second post where that intent was put at cross purposes with some of my responses which wasn't what I was trying to do. I'm sure if some "holy grail" want was put before me I'd be tempted to procure it through any means just as anyone else would - perhaps the issue in regards to commonly "pirated" things through the internet (games, music, movies, tv) is I don't have a strong enough emotive connection with these so that' I'd have to "pirate" to obtain? I dunno. I know and understand (again I'm not making a pro/con value judgement here) about the "grey market" - like out-of-print games from long defunct publishers that will never be seen on some "best of" collection or "bootlegs" that are supported by a band because it helps get their name out there, or even collector-to-collector trades of material (old movies duped off 16 mm or tv shows recorded ages ago to VHS or Beta and then traded for similar from others). But these things - and perhaps I'm wrong here - seem a bit different from seeking out sources with which to intentionally acquire things that you don't (or can't) have access to that are "current". But I also feel it is, perhaps, too easy to dismiss this action as simply "entitlement" from people who feel they should have whatever they want. One issue that comes to mind that perhaps fuels my inability to understand this may be from the fact that while "everyone" in the world but a particular country may be able to play a game, that argument comes to me as sort of "if everyone jumped off a cliff would you do it too?" scenario. I can't help but feel that worldwide "peer pressure" isn't a strong enough reason. But maybe it is that simple?

I don't understand why "I want to play some awesome games but there's no legal mean to purchase" automatically resolves to "I should illegally acquire the game". Not trying to make a value judgement here, but I don't see how one justifies the other. Because there was for very long time no legal way how to obtain ANY game in my country... Lot of people had money for good computers, but no one offered them any possible way how to actualy buy a game or music... If you were fan of Iron Maiden, which were not actualy available to buy legaly in our country as an example for a very long time, you would be retarded to switch to New Kids on the Block, just because it was possible to but it legaly in 1990 here... See I'd not buy New Kids on the Block and just deal with my disappointment that I couldn't get any legitimate Iron Maiden stuff. Actually, I just would get over my disappointment that I couldn't get a version of Mortal Kombat to play at home. Well, except Alcohol can be physically addictive so I'm not sure its directly correspondant (although I suppose an argument can be made that entertainment media could also cause addictions). Thanks for the answer though; I suppose that my own personal viewpoint is such that the rationale in the illegal acquisition of some things is hard for me to put into perspective.

So... it's a period piece version of Castle? Yes, if Castle was a Byronic hero, the police investigator was a man and not a woman, and it wasn't as good, this would totally be a period piece Castle.

I don't understand why "I want to play some awesome games but there's no legal mean to purchase" automatically resolves to "I should illegally acquire the game". Not trying to make a value judgement here, but I don't see how one justifies the other.

Did they exclaim "Hello Sailor!"?

You can keep your expired passports, no ? Yes; as I recall you can use them to get a renewed passport as well.

It seems the vast majority of stuff floating around (to put it nicely) on the internet is "easy" entertainment. Maybe people who read Tolstoy are more likely to buy the book than people who watch Indepence Day are likely to buy the dvd? Tolstoy's in the public domain (at least the earliest translations for non-original language versions) so you can legally make the text available any way you like. I can download War and Peace for free on a Kindle (if I had such a device).

Did you have anything against 5th Element? Sorry I thought you were arguing against Lockout, and no I have nothing against the 5th Element. It was the first movie in which Milla Jojovich married a director so she could get a role. How many directors has she married? Two, Luc Bessan (1997-1999) and Paul W. S. Anderson (2009 - present). Her other marriage (annulled, IIRC) was to an actor. I watched THE RAVEN over the weekend. Not a bad idea for a movie (Edgar Allen Poe is recruited by the police to help capture a killer who uses scenes from Poe's work to stage gruesome murders) but it doesn't seem to understand the period its set in, Poe or his work or even manage a compelling mystery. It also seems oddly preoccupied with the gore of various deaths than makeing things suspensful or really chilling. John Cusack does his best playing Byron playing Poe, Alice Eve is serviceable as the female lead; Brendan Gleeson's talents are mostly wasted as his role is mostly scowling. Luke Evans manages to do well with the inspector who recruits Poe to help. Set design and costumes were pretty good though, as was cinematography.

The Terrible Crossover Fanfiction Idea Generator! http://kaction.com/badfanfiction/

Er...True Grit cost $38 Million to make so even though its world wide gross is less ($250 million vs $560 million) the difference in profitability is less than you think compared to Cars 2's $200 million cost. (Based on the common estimate, a movie would have had to make 1.5 - 2 times its budget to turn a profit, so...). However its also fair to note that movie companies have stated they'd rather spend more money for more profit than spend less money for smaller profits. The question for games comes - even though Angry Birds sells more games what are the costs involved. Lets say - for simplicity sake - that Angry Birds retails at $5 (which their website indicated the PC version does), it has to sell 12 games for every one of ME2 (at $60 a unit) to compare the money actually being made. So in this situation, if Mass Effect 2 sells 1 million games and Angry Birds sells 8 million games, Mass Effect 2 actually made more money (~$60 million vs $40 million). Then of course there's development cost, advertising cost and such...the situation becomes fairly muddled. Also fair to note is that most movie companies will try to make 1-2 "prestige" pictures each year with the goal of being to snag awards (with the idea that winning awards leads to larger secondary market interest as well as a trickle down effect for the company). There doesn't really seem to be an "award effect" in video games like there is in movies.

You know, I played FFV but can't remember much about it other than I think it used a Job System. Mind you, I've never understood the love for FFIV either...

Oh yeah, I do remember reading about that now!

Hadn't heard about Demon's Souls inspired elements; had heard it described as a cross between Golden Axe and a modern RPG with a branching story. That and the movies I'd seen of the game really piqued my interest. So that we're getting it at all seems like a major achievement at this point since it seems to have had some trouble! The press release said "The transfer of licensing rights from UTV Ignition Entertainment to Index Digital Media, Inc. only affects the title's publishing and distribution; Dragon's Crown is still being developed by Vanillaware." but also lists Atlus now as a producer on the title, so I'm not sure how much input they're going to have in the game really.

Yeah I was worried when it seemed to drop off the radar it was going to be cancelled. Atlus being involved is good, IMO. That said, my only worry about changing the art (if that is indeed what they do, as opposed to just toning it down in previews or cover art like they've done in some titles) is only really if it has a detrimental effect on the animations; the movies I'd seen looked really good for the sprite animations and I'd hate to think that might get sacrificed because the character designs were too over-the-top for the US market.

Atlus has taken over publishing duties for Vanillaware's DRAGON'S CROWN n the US... ...which means the game isn't coming out until next year. It was originally slated for an early 2012 release but had slipped past that to a generic 2012 release last I heard. So glad its not being cancelled. http://blog.us.plays...or-ps-vita-ps3/ EDIT: Looking at Atlus' version of the Dragon's Crown site, it looks like they haven't moved over the movies or the full character art for the Valkyrie or Sorceress (both over-the-top in being "sexy") and all the character pictures are cropped. Wonder if it means that they'll be altering these characters for the NA market? Japan Site - http://dragons-crown.com/jp/ Atlus Site - http://www.atlus.com/dragonscrown/

Are you closer to the sexy librarian look or the sexy accountant look? Neither. I need them to see as well. The world's a blobby impressionist painting without them. Maybe its because I'm a supervisor now, and everyone who noticed is either a potential employee or family...

I got new glasses. Everyone tells me I look younger. I'm not sure if they mean it, or if they're humoring me...

I still would like to visit Kutn

Is the air being properly filtered in the new place? Mold? Allergens?

Camera's still suck but the enemies are expensive now, maybe? I'm still playing through Tales of Graces f but remembered I'd been doing Tales of the World on my PSP and picked it back up.