Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Quboid

Real Name Quboid   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Quboid
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description I can't make any car pop a wheelie.
Homepage http://bcmedia.biz/
Signed On Jul 26, 2001, 01:42
Total Comments 4345 (Master)
User ID 10439
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


News Comments > GTA4 iCEnhancer Mod Author Taking a Break
7. Re: Out of the Blue Jul 28, 2014, 13:49 Quboid
 
Any mod that contains anything new (such as a new model, a texture/skin, a map) is a creative work and therefore is copyrighted. The creator has a right to demand permission to redistribute, not just get credit. It's a grey area if the mod is just changing existing content (such as tweaking a file) but this goes way past that.

Is the problem that he put stuff in the video that isn't in the mod (including the 3 texture packs on his site) or that these texture packs include textures that aren't his to redistribute? Either is poor form but only the later goes beyond an oversight.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
108. Re: Op Ed Jul 27, 2014, 11:46 Quboid
 
On Yahtzee's Let's Drown Out series (him from Zero Punctuation, he does a weekly Let's Play / Podcast hybrid) there's a guy called Gabe who refers to the "someone covered in shit" principle. This is where somebody is making an excellent case for something with a compelling argument really getting people thinking - only for someone covered in shit to stand up beside them and shout "I agree!", derailing the conversation and rendering the argument ineffectual.

That's what these MRA pricks and their ilk are, people covered in shit. Hiding your sexism behind feminism? You're a person covered in shit.

I must have missed that thread, Beamer, although I doubt I'm any worse off for having done so. Blocking someone because you disagree with them is weak but blocking them for how they said it is more understandable, which I think is what you're implying.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Legal Briefs
5. Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Jul 26, 2014, 22:26 Quboid
 
I think that legislation is coming, one way or the other. Classifying the Internet as a utility would cause the least amount of legislation by far I would guess, as it is a fairly blanket term with plenty of precedent. Other options (neutral or not) would require defining a whole new concept and decades of legal battles and loopholes and exceptions and appeals and oh so much paperwork.  
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
105. Re: Op Ed Jul 26, 2014, 21:50 Quboid
 
yuastnav wrote on Jul 26, 2014, 17:58:
This whole business of blocking someone because you got really emotional over something that person said is silly.
Come on people, you have a perfectly functioning brain. You can read something someone said and then decide on the fly whether you want to just dismiss it outright or further think about it.
It's not that you can actually get dumber by reading something.

I understand blocking someone because of spam, which I rarely see here, but because of opinions?

I was wondering if there was more to it, and apparently there is. I don't like blocking anyone ever but I appreciate that others feel differently. Some people seem to regularly misunderstand Beamer and get angry at him over their own weird misinterpretation so it's good that it's not that again. I once saw someone get angry at him for saying that Simcity 2013 getting an offline mode was good for consumers. I mean, disagreeing with that takes determination and talent, it's almost admirable.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
101. Re: Op Ed Jul 25, 2014, 23:36 Quboid
 
Beamer wrote on Jul 25, 2014, 12:28:
Mad Max RW wrote on Jul 25, 2014, 12:18:
A rebuttal to what exactly? How bullying and harassment as a pretense to getting your way by hiding behind "equality" and "tolerance" is bad? That has to be explained? People like Beamer and jdreyer don't care at all about helping others. They are in it just for making everyone feel as miserable as they are. Racism, women's rights, gay marriage, etc. doesn't matter to them. It's pretend. It's a show. They latch onto these things only to perpetuate an intolerance they created. That's their motive. Not to help but to make everyone fight each other. Meanwhile any actual gains are lost because of their bogus ideas.

Your worldview is terrifying.

His worldview is convenient. Anybody who seems more open minded than him is actually a phoney. I honestly don't think he has considered the possibility that people can actually have empathy.

I'm very surprised that Verno blocks Beamer. Verno, just because you disagree with him? Beamer's not the sort to resort to things like throwing stupid labels around, which FWIW I appreciate you calling out.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > The Sims 2 Ultimate Collection Free for All
17. Re: The Sims 2 Ultimate Collection Free for All Jul 23, 2014, 21:13 Quboid
 
NKD wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 20:33:
jdreyer wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 19:27:
I guess? I mean, I bought Sims 3 for my wife to play, and she fooled around with it for a few hours and never returned.

Your wife never returned?! Sorry to hear that bro. There are other fish in the sea!

That sucks but I've finished with people for less. I'm not sure what else you'd expect with a present like that.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
54. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 23, 2014, 20:46 Quboid
 
Flatline wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 19:51:
Quboid wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 01:07:
In real life if I was forced to ... well, that's besides the point. Whatever the reason, it wouldn't be because reality was scripted in a way that created a contrived a plot line. Whatever happened in real life wouldn't rip me out of the experience and remind me that I'm not really there.

Actually that's exactly the point.

Seriously, "bomb the shit out of coordinates X,Y NOW SOLDIER" is a thing that happens in real life. And in real life occasionally that has resulted in innocent people being killed or lethal friendly fire. How you deal with committing an atrocity is the entire point of the game.

Shit as a soldier you're taught not to question orders, especially in the heat of battle.

You're actually illustrating the point of the game designers pretty well.

But reality is realistic. If this happened in real, it would not remind me that I'm sitting at home, playing a game. Reality doesn't have its immersion broken because of unrealistic scripting limitations.

This did not put me in the position of a soldier who does something terrible by mistake, nor did it put me in the position of a solider who was ordered to do something terrible. It put me in the position of sitting safely in a room about 3,500 miles from Dubai.

I wasn't thinking "oh what a terrible thing" or "oh I'm a terrible person", I was thinking "oh lame, the devs assumed I wouldn't notice that they're civilians from their outline in the mortar's sight but I did". I wasn't forced by an order from a commanding officer or any other realistic reason, I was forced because the game didn't offer any of the myriad of actual options that reality does offer.

I felt frustrated and removed from the game's version of reality. If this was intentional to make me feel the madness that's taking over my character, then these developers screwed up worse than I ever thought because at least for me, any meta connotations completely backfired. Feeling like the developers got carried away does not replicate the feelings one would have after accidentally brutally burning to death innocent civilians, in much the same way as my Windows desktop doesn't replicate the bravery and consequences of refusing an order.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > The Sims 2 Ultimate Collection Free for All
8. Re: The Sims 2 Ultimate Collection Free for All Jul 23, 2014, 19:20 Quboid
 
I think this is 99% trying to get people to sign up for and sign in to Origin, and 1% them giggling at the thought of gamers resentfully typing in that product code.

If it was The Sims 3, I'd check it out. Then again, I run Origin most of the time as it, and am currently alt-tabbed out of an Origin game.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jul 23, 2014, 11:20 Quboid
 
BitWraith wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 10:16:
It sounds suspect to me that Ultra Records would "give permission" to use the songs. It sounds more likely that they would "sell permission". These folks aren't known for their giving nature.

"Give" was my choice of word and wasn't very well considered. Given in exchange for something, or as someone more eloquent than I might say, sold.

Another report (oh God, now I'm researching make-up YouTube celebrities ) suggests that she did this with at least one of the actual artist's permission. That could go either way, if all she has is permission from someone who doesn't actually own the rights then she's boned.

The fact that I've actually heard of some of these artists suggests that Ultra Records should be smart enough to not thoughtlessly sign usage rights over for a pittance, nor are they likely to sue without having a case. (If it's not already clear, this is not my scene and I've never heard of them.)

Apparently she is worth $3,000,000. Or perhaps that should be "was".
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jul 23, 2014, 10:05 Quboid
 
BitWraith wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 09:31:
I just checked out that youtube channel. That girl is boned. While I hate the music industry as much as the next guy, you can't just use whatever you want in your work - images and music alike.

I just checked out that YouTube channel and now I want to rip out my eye balls and stuff them into my ears.

It comes down to 'A spokesman for Phan told the BBC that Ultra "agreed to allow Michelle to use the music and Michelle intends to fight this lawsuit"' - she can't use whatever music she likes but if they gave her permission (speculation: perhaps massively underestimating the size/income of some YouTube channels) they can't just reverse it if they change their mind.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
51. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 23, 2014, 01:07 Quboid
 
If they intentionally significantly reduced the level of immersion I felt to make a point then their heads were so far stuck up their own asses that they failed to make a good experience. People don't play corridor shooters continually thinking "should I continue or am I doing bad things and should stop?", they're thinking "where's this guy going to pop his head up next". You can't enjoy a game if you're continually reminded that you're sitting at home.

In real life if I was forced to ... well, that's besides the point. Whatever the reason, it wouldn't be because reality was scripted in a way that created a contrived a plot line. Whatever happened in real life wouldn't rip me out of the experience and remind me that I'm not really there.

If they didn't intend the frustration, they made a flawed game. If they did intend the frustration, they made a deeply flawed game.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
47. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 22, 2014, 07:06 Quboid
 
007Bistromath wrote on Jul 22, 2014, 00:12:
Quboid wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 20:37:
This isn't The Stanley Parable.

One of the most important lines in the game, one that comes through so crystal clear, and which is repeated more than once, a line which it could easily be argued is addressed to the player just as much as it is to the character: "all you had to do was stop."

The Stanley Parable is EXACTLY what this is.

But Spec Ops: The Line wasn't talking to *me*. That's the problem. I wanted it to talk to me but by attributing a terrible decision that I never made to my character, it built a wall between us.

The Stanley Parable, as well as being very meta and actually talking to the player, was supposed to be restarted regularly. A linear shooter like Spec Ops: The Line is not and I really, really hope Yager weren't intending that. I want my money's worth and if there's supposed to be a statement about how I consider "my money's worth" to be more important than avoiding the horrible stuff that happens in game then it utterly fails because my money is real and the suffering isn't.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
42. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 20:37 Quboid
 
Asmo, you and I view this game quite differently. Perhaps I'm the exception here, perhaps there's no consensus, but you are talking about effectively a different game. How much did this affect you? Talking about being forced to watch horrific acts, psychopathy, sick sense of inevitability, what?!? I played a generic 3rd person cover shooter with a nice twist to the plot. The white phosphorous bit, I thought "oh this will be the bit Yahtzee was referring to in Zero Punctuation. Any way to avoid it? ... hmm, nope. OK then". This was grim by game standards but I managed to move on emotionally in about 5 seconds.

The only sense of frustration was that the game kept referring to this moment as if I - the player - had done it and every time came up, I got ripped out of the game as it reminded me that I wasn't in control. The exact moment that was supposed to define the game - and I suppose did define the game - was the moment where the game failed because it was trying to be a film.

Your point about narrative is sort of what I mean about the character's journey versus the player's. It's a game, I'm not watching this guy, I am controlling him. To have control effectively taken away at a crucial point diminishes the game. It wasn't the character losing control of reality, it was me being unable to get my objective ticked until I clicked on the right pixels. The narrative and plot may be developing wonderfully but this isn't a film and gameplay and immersion is now being affected by this disconnect.

The choice to continue playing the game, I'm not buying it. This isn't The Stanley Parable. Finishing the game was a bit of a chore because the gameplay was so generic, not because it was traumatising. The main reason I wouldn't describe this game as fun is because it was otherwise so generic, not because it was emotionally draining. It was memorable and I do admire it but it sounds like it affected you like Brothers: A Tale Of Two Sons managed to get to me. That's a game has nothing to do with choice or morality but it still managed to get under my skin - in a good, but not fun way.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
40. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 20:17 Quboid
 
It really depends on what the game was trying to be. The disagreement seems to be based on how you see it - the character's journey or the player's journey.

If it was trying to make the player think about how the player character descends into madness, then it has done a pretty good job.

If it was trying to make a moral point and trying to make the player feel bad, then it failed.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
28. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 15:51 Quboid
 
ItBurn wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 15:02:
The Witcher games already do this. You make a bunch of calls which you think are the right ones, but you really have no idea. And then you reap the consequences and sometimes they really really suck. I killed a whole village of people because of one of my choices and Geralt kept on going and the story took into consideration my choices. You make the decision if you're a good or bad guy and it's really hard to tell at points. Even games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Fallout 3 do this successfully to some extent, or at least better than Spec Ops. The difference is that spec ops tried to make you feel specifically like an asshole. At least the Witcher games aren't as terrible as Spec Ops, so let's encourage them instead.

Very good points.

I haven't actually played The Witcher much. I own both but never got into either, that style of combat doesn't appeal. It's hard to say but it felt clunky and lacked the immediacy that I prefer. I know it's absolutely not, but it felt like a bad port at times. I haven't played Dragon Age. The Witcher sounds like the sort of organic choice and morality which is the best way to do it IMHO. I should revisit The Witcher 2.

Morality is an important aspect to games with choice, either explicit choices like Mass Effect or The Witcher (as I understand it) or open games like Skyrim or Fallout (which do have explicit choices but unlike Mass Effect also have lots of so-called emergent gameplay choices like random murdering or nicking stuff while the shop keeper has a basket over his head). Even in games without morality systems in them, this affects my choices - if there's choice, there's morality and if there isn't choice, Spec Ops, there isn't morality. I much prefer games without actual morality systems - consequences should be natural and whether a choice is morally good or bad should be left to the player. The world doesn't pop up "+5 Good" and neither should a game, rather NPCs should judge my decisions based on their beliefs, needs, and understanding. I typically play as good characters, but systems like Mass Effect's makes me feel that I have to max it out so morality becomes one choice early in the game: good or bad.

Mass Effect is a great example of branching story lines, bar the ending which basically chucked all your decisions - and basic logic - out the window. This is a large part of why Mass Effect are great games and Spec Ops: The Line is little more than a curiosity - they attempted to have their cake and eat it with regards to morality and linearity. Considering whether the player was the bad guy was an interesting take but if it was trying to make a moral statement, it failed hard.

If you want to try another take on branching story telling, check out Alpha Protocol. It was the Fallout New Vegas team's previous project, it's not nearly as polished as Mass Effect but there are some similarities.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2014, 15:57.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
25. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 14:54 Quboid
 
To its credit, I felt that it was more about him obsessing about "Am I a bad person?" rather than the game repeatedly telling us that he is.

With regards to the phosphorous scene (which I guess is now beyond spoiler tags) - this demonstrates the difficulty in developing plot-driven interactive content. That scene would have been vastly more powerful if it had been my mistake, rather than my character's, but I can't think of any way to implement that as the entire rest of the game hinges on this mistake. That games make us identify with the lead character to some extent is an amazing story telling innovation but we don't really know how to use it yet. Books, films, etc don't have any problem with the reader disagreeing with a decision because we don't feel like any decision is being made *for us*.

I think this is what I like about Spec Ops: The Line. It tried something different and by and large it failed. But it tried, and the next time someone tries to make a game that tries something different, they'll have a little bit more idea about what works and what doesn't. It's a brave new world and I'm not referring to the Civ 5 expansion pack which, being open-ended, takes a whole other approach to interactive story telling.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
14. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 11:54 Quboid
 
I really don't think that the combat was supposed to be a grind. It was pretty much the same as the previous Spec Ops games I played and they can't just claim that exactly the same thing is now a clever statement unless they're also admitting that their previous game sucked - which it did, but I think is rather more than they want to admit. I don't think they went for intentionally bad gameplay at all but even if they did, they wouldn't - they couldn't - just use the same gameplay and claim the opposite to what they'd said a few years earlier. I agree with ItBurn on this, they simply failed to make good gameplay.

However, despite its many flaws it is one of the most memorable games in recent years and in terms of how memorable it is for me compared to how good it is or how much time I spent playing it, it's one of the most impactful games I've ever played.

I don't think games should need to be fun. If fun is implied in the name "video game" then we need a new name, we don't need to neuter our interactive content to fit an anachronism.

Elf Shot The Food sums up the biggest flaw in the story line. You weren't supposed to know before it but I did and I wasn't the only one.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel
4. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 10:35 Quboid
 
Spec Ops: The Line had lacklustre combat, just the same 3rd person cover whack-a-mole nonsense that we've seen a millions times. Graphically it was average and even its plot was over done and trying too hard.

And yet, Spec Ops: The Line is the only Spec Ops game I remember. It tried something new and even if it was rather ham-fisted IMHO, dammit it tried and that puts it above so many of its contemporaries. It's a fleeting thought I've had many times while playing games: I'm gunning down hundreds of people, just who is the bad guy here? It's interesting to see someone examine that line of thought.

In 5 years when they announce a new Spec Ops game, it will be The Line that they will appeal to people's nostalgia for.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Safety Dance
7. Re: Saturday Safety Dance Jul 20, 2014, 13:33 Quboid
 
That's an interesting take, WaltC.

The idea that the NSA would now have vastly more computer power than cold-war era USSR doesn't strike me as especially amazing - there's possibly more in my house - and given how it has expanded in budget and personnel over the last 13 years (and wasn't tiny before 9/11), the manpower wouldn't be a problem. I don't think any of the leaked stuff has especially high manpower requirements, it mostly seems to be number-crunching done by computers. This isn't 1984 Ministry Of Truth style stuff where masses of paper is being "corrected" by hand, they just need to hire nerds with fewer qualms than good Will Hunting.

I don't see him constantly leaking negative stuff as being inconsistent with someone who has taken a moral stand again the amount of negative stuff he saw. I wouldn't expect someone to whistle-blow all the lovely legal stuff that they'd witnessed.

There's quite a lot of smoke for there to be no fire. Did he manage to trick Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian and all the other reputable news sources long before he went to Russia? I presume the stuff being leaked now has been seen by journalists long ago and isn't under Putin's control. Did he get Lavabit to shut themselves down? Why have so many companies, unable to legally say "yes we had install surveillance gear" been unwilling to say "no we have not had to install gear"? Why have Google engineers been quoted reacting angrily to the news that the NSA had *further* surveillance on their traffic if that the NSA already had some was known beyond Snowden? Why is Snowden capable of such feats and the NSA isn't?

This comment was edited on Jul 20, 2014, 17:32.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Safety Dance
4. Re: Saturday Safety Dance Jul 19, 2014, 21:57 Quboid
 
panbient wrote on Jul 19, 2014, 19:12:
I wonder more about why Snowden and his team are so hung up on this drip drop method of releasing information and trying to keep his name in the press.

Like that whole 'they look at nudie pics in the office' release from last week. To my ears that sounds like scraping the bottom of the barrel. By keeping his name in the press for these kind of 'reveals' makes him seem like the conspiracy equivalent to a Kardashian.

It keeps the issue in the news. The general public has the attention span of a hyperactive goldfish and we'd have moved on to something shinier by now if they'd dumped it all at once. It also makes it awkward for the NSA's lackeys to bullshit their way out of things if they don't know what lies could be quickly debunked.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4345 Comments. 218 pages. Viewing page 9.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo