91 signatures.

Why is this news?

I'm OK with it being rebooted. The original run was awesome, but they played the jokes into the floor, and they took the storyline to such extremes that there wasn't really anyplace else to take it. They could remaster (and I hope they still do), but if they want to make new games, they needed a reboot (or even a 'The Next Generation', which this could be...)

Donkey_Punch wrote on Aug 13, 2021, 11:09:
San Andreas and Vice City were amazing and I would love remasters.

The only problem is how much of the sound tracks would we lose because of licensing deals that were made so long ago?

GTA 3 didn't have that memorable of a soundtrack, and they hadn't really started licensing the five-star artists they did later. How much is the Scarface soundtrack license going for these days, anyway?

Vice City and San Andreas - yeah, they'll lose some music. But then again, both use older tracks so the licensing is less, and when it finally makes it to PC it'll be the firs thing to be modded back in.

Although I usually got tired of the soundtracks halfway through the games and swapped them out for my own (on-theme) music files.

Agent.X7 wrote on Jul 26, 2021, 22:13:

If you are one of those people who can't accept others because they don't fit your worldview

...goes on to be one of those people who won't accept others because they don't fit his worldview.

Having an open mind is important. But it has to be tempered with Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is garbage.

Having an open mind means considering all viewpoints. It doesn't mean accepting them, and if someone's worldview is willfully harmful, you can be open minded and still reject their views as invalid and unacceptable.

And being a racist or a homophobe is willfully harmful. IE - those people have a view that can be safely rejected due to a complete lack of value.

Some people have a funny idea of how real life works. You can't always just quit a job, especially in an industry that is notoriously difficult to get into. You can't always just pack up your spouse and kids and move to where a new job is. You can't always just stop paying your bills, your mortgage, your rent, your car payments. Sometimes, especially if you're starting out in a new career in a tough industry you don't have the choice to quit.

It's called 'responsibilities' and is part of being all growed up.

I don't know why that isn't obvious to some of you. Perhaps too much time in your parents' basement?

$2000+ and a subscription - that's a high price game controller!

I swear, "Tom Clancy's" just means "Ubisoft" these days. He was an author known for a specific style (which was all about detail and accuracy in the portrayal of the military in suspense thrillers.) Nothing that's been released with his name since around 2005 has anything at all to do with his style at all (some of the Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell titles were at least comparable - Clancy did write in tech that was believed to be around the corner from time to time - heartbeat sensors, for instance.) But starting with Vegas, and especially since Siege it's just gotten sillier and sillier.

Cartoon sci-fi is fine. Cartoon sci-fi isn't a "Tom Clancy's" any more than "Tom Clancy's Space Battle Simulator" would be.

Clancy games while he was involved: "We can't have a shot direction indicator in Ghost Recon; it isn't a realistic portrayal of a technology soldiers have in the field." (<- a real criticism he had about the game, and was only barely convinced to let it slide.)

Clancy games after he died: "Well, if we take this operative, give her a Batman grappling gun that will launch her 30 feet into the air and through solid wooden barricades, and then we introduce this new guy that runs through walls like the Juggernaut, then we'll be able to market skins for them based on cartoons and make a fortune!"

Ol' Tom is revving up for more grave-spinning.

Explanation?

That was condescending double-speak, advertising spiel, not an explanation.

Not that I'm all that concerned - making it a three-person game makes it unplayable for established groups, not when every other co-op game out there is 4+. Which friend do we tell they can't play anymore?

Answer: None of them, because we aren't assholes.

More than once I shut off the TV when his bullshit started. Think he'll sue me? Or just the remote control manufacturer?

You don't fire people for allegations. You investigate people for allegation, then fire people for actual, confirmed misconduct.

UbiSoft's problems are that they're not being transparent about the process, leaving us to take their word for it, and having a reputation that makes their word unreliable.

Stand there and shoot until you fall asleep mode.

Don't need AI mode.

Don't need to balance mode.

Horde mode.

Lens... so... much... vaseline!

tl;dr - We're not doing anything. But we're letting everyone jump up and down to upload video clips to a storage folder so they can feel like they're 'participating.' Oh, and maybe we'll have an intern stitch a few of them together into a trailer later on.

I play a lot of coop games with a regular group. The simple fact that this is for three players completely eliminates it for us. Most coop games are built for four players. Most regular groups are four players. We aren't going to tell one member of our years-long group to just shove off so we can play this one title.

In a dystopia where wealthy capitalists control elections, media, and the lives of working people, we’re faced with two choices - accept it or fight for something better.

Subtle analogy.

BIG NEWS!

People who create things are going to create a thing! Of some sort! That might appeal or not! Eventually! Maybe!

I just can't get off this hype train. It's too compelling!

Yay?

I want my speeches. They'd better not mess with the speeches!