For all the complains people make about corporation politics, most are willing to jump through the hops to get the latest Call of Duty/Street Fighter/Mass Effect.
@wolfgang12193 No, because they didn't buy the used copy from Capcom to begin with. They bought it from whoever sold it to them as used (who probably bought it from them in the beginning)...
So they sold it twice, but pay royalties to Capcom for only one time.
Its highly likely that there is alien life forms in other stars, but its not like its easy to find. The amount on space in space (no pun intended) makes it almost impossible we will just stumble into another race by chance. We haven't discover how to make interplanetary travel safely (let alone interstellar travel), can't leave the solar system and, even if we could, the speed of light pose some pretty hard limitations to our destinations. Finally, all our attempts to contact alien life (like project SETI) have been based in finding relatable aliens with similar intelligence and technology than ours (anyone who read Solaris, or seen the Racchni should know how "alien" extraterrestrial life can really be). We are basing our hopes that some race could transmit radio signals and that we are able to find them in the immensity of space and on the delta time of how long the signal took to travel to earth (which could be several million years)... then we have to interpret and decipher it into something coherent to us. All this makes it almost statistically impossible that we will find and contact extraterrestrial life...
@Elazul_Stice: That is an awful comparison. The article is about Irrational and Levine choosing to show all surprises and answer all questions beforehand, spoiling surprises and interpretations that should be left to experience in October; which is totally different than complaining afterwards (because I assume people that complain at least had the decency of playing it) about the product. OT: There is always the choice of not watching the videos, although I presume there is a lot more to this game than what is shown there...
Problem with AI is: you have to find a good balance. Make it too weak, and it will feel like a shooting gallery. Make it too strong, and you have something that would make SF4's Seth cry... Also, good AI is really time consuming... that is why most games can't use heavier processes, and have to use state machines (some of them really complex, though)
Nickfury101: you have some interesting points there, allow me to counter some... - Many artist have created what they would consider "low" art, yet it belongs to a museum. Many of the Michelangelo work was commisioned by the church, and as such it was more the client request than the author feelings what you see in the Sixtin Chapel. Many artist of the renaissanse worked (many would even consider the expression "licking ***" more appropiate) for the monarchy or the landlords, yet they created stuff that pleased other people. Would that make it less art? - There are games that are uncompromised visions of their authors, but that doesn't mean they are totally unique, as other people can pick them up and enjoy them. One example is MGS... even when I didn't found the games flawless, I can see Kojima's hand in every detail of the game. It is his vision, and a good example of a uncompromised game that people enjoyed. Of course, if the games weren't enjoyable, there would not be a 4, but just because lot of people enjoyed them doesn't make it less his vision. Even the first God of War can be considered Jaffe's vision, as well as Fable was Molyneux's vision, and Spore was Wright's vision. They envision to create a world and to invite players to explore it by interacting with it, that was their INTENT. - I don't know if we could ever get to a point where we could get a metric to decide what is low and high art, and I don't think games should be an exception. 200 years from now, a Britney Spears song could belong to a museum. Picasso was rejected from the "high" art because its paintings weren't realistic...
@Nickfury101: So, you would write out any piece of modern writing or music as art, because they are supposed to be commercially viable? Let's face it, no publisher or records company will show your work to the public unless they think they can sell it to someone, so you can assume 99% of the music you hear is heard because is commercially viable. I don't think a game should sacrifice the idea of being enjoyable in lieu of being a piece of art, because I don't think interactive and enjoyable, and artistic are opposite terms... Video Games need to be enjoyable to some level to be succesful (they are games, after all), but that doesn't mean games can't be art too. To limit games as an art form because they need to be enjoyable to be good is like limiting music as an art form because it needs to have harmony to be considered good...
@Neyska: That is part of my point, although maybe I didn't express it right. Writting as such is not an art, not everything I write is supposed to be considered a creative process (I may challenge you to point me the art in a shopping list), but the result of this skill/craft is what makes some art possible. Coding is not an art (as much as math is not art either), but the possibilities that that skill create can pretty much be considered art.
hermes200's comments