Romero, Hall Leave ION

It's been rumored for some time now, but GameSpy Daily is reporting that it's now official, John Romero, Tom Hall, and all the employees of ION Storm's Dallas office have left the company. Here's the statement from Eidos Interactive that they received:
John Romero and Tom Hall have decided to depart ION Storm to pursue other interests. We wish them luck in their future endeavors and thank them for their contribution to ION Storm over the years, without which we would never have put together such talented teams in both our Austin and Dallas offices. ION Storm will continue as a wholly owned subsidiary of Eidos and work on the sequels to the awarding winning Thief and Deus Ex titles as well as Deus Ex for the PS2.
View : : :
135 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Older
135.
 
Re: Science is NOT a religion
Jul 29, 2001, 05:07
anon@4.33
Re: Science is NOT a religion Jul 29, 2001, 05:07
Jul 29, 2001, 05:07
anon@4.33
 
#130: "But the idea put forth for over 100 years is that science is the new thought people put their faith in."

WRONG! Faith is belief without proof. Science is belief WITH PROOF. You cannot put your faith in science; science offers no facts under the pretense of faith, without proof. You don't need to have faith for it.

SCIENCE IS: a basis of reproducible, proven facts from emperical evidence about the nature of the world. Science is understandable by everyone who cares to learn, and the best part: if two completely different people learn it, they both arrive at the same conclusions and can verify the same facts. There are no ministers or priests ("scientists" have no special powers, no connection to any being, they are just very learned). If you don't agree with some aspect of science, you are WELCOMED to challenge it, and show others why it is wrong. If you are right, and the reason is verifiable, science changes to meet the correct known facts.

Hypothesis that are unverified, or verified only through projected data are not factual science, which you seem to misunderstand in your descriptions of what accepted science is. You are in the world of prediction and unverified hypothesis; you must understand that interpreting data is not an establishment of scientific fact. That is why you err.

"It's the same with any doctrine of thought, and their are certain points in science where you simply most continue on based on faith in certain principles that are not provable. "

There are no principles that are considered fact without proof. There are base rules, called axioms, that if you do not accept, then you cannot usefully continue and describe anything about the world, but they are usually things that anyone can accept by thinking about them (such as: the definition of parallel lines, triangles have three sides, etc).

I disagree with your hypothesis that knowledge is merely a disillusionment; two teams researching the same topic without communication can arrive at the same discoveries about that topic, and then confirm their findings with each other. That proves that there is a fundamental set of rules governing the universe (with the addition of Universal Continuity) beyond humans or whatever creatures try to understand it, and that it would be shared even across species and life forms.

134.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 15:22
anon@217.5
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 15:22
Jul 26, 2001, 15:22
anon@217.5
 
# 128 and #130 I assume you are talking about evolutionary science?

#126 again. You have probably figured this error out already, but the URL for the dot org was incorrect for Maitreya. it is http://www.maitreya.org

I think you will agree the views presented on both sites somewhat are in vast contrast to the Bible.
133.
 
The other Ion Game
Jul 26, 2001, 13:31
anon@207.172
The other Ion Game Jul 26, 2001, 13:31
Jul 26, 2001, 13:31
anon@207.172
 
What ever happened to that 3rd big Ion Storm game, I think it was called Doppleganger or something like that.
132.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 12:47
anon@199.246
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 12:47
Jul 26, 2001, 12:47
anon@199.246
 
Man, not every Christian is also a closet preacher. Don't lump everyone who has a faith or goes to church in with the nut jobs!

cheers,
Andrew
131.
 
Namby Pamby Religious F**Ks
Jul 26, 2001, 11:36
Namby Pamby Religious F**Ks Jul 26, 2001, 11:36
Jul 26, 2001, 11:36
 
"Well, you could always have the filter set to screen out anonymous postings so you wouldn't see the religion garbage, you mean, mean people." -- paraphrased posting of a certified wuss who has no place here.


Yeah, true, I could do that. But then I would miss wonderful posts like the one made by anon@195.92 and that would really bum me out. You see, some of us might like to actually discuss this issue instead of being caught up in your fantasy land of make-believe called religion.

While there is no hard and fast rules for freedom of speech on the Internet, what you are doing is insufferably and unbelievably RUDE, your boorish religious pigs. You retards must be Christians; only followers of that cult-like mantra can possibly be so arrogant when it comes to pushing their views in a forum where they are so clearly not welcome.

Reminds me of a joke I just made up. . .

Q: What's more aggravating and pointless than the first episode of Daikatana?

A: Uh, a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

Q: Close! The real answer is, a religious zealot trying to justify their faith in the "Romero, Hall Leave ION" thread at www.bluesnews.com!

A: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go away, Christians. Go find some books to burn or something.

"Irony is good for the blood." -- S.E.K.
130.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 09:17
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 09:17
Jul 26, 2001, 09:17
 
I think you're missing the point of a statement like that. If you assume that religion is only a falsehood and science is always correct, then yeah, science is not a religion. But the idea put forth for over 100 years is that science is the new thought people put their faith in. It all parallels nicely. You have the masses, basically ignorant of all but the most minor details, and scientist as the new priesthood who assert their knowledge over the masses. The problem with that, which also happens in many religions, is that sometimes scientists are wrong, or misinterpret data. If science was more accurate you wouldn't have as much disagreement about results, so on. This has happened in almost everything major world religion, which often results in factions. Science is often no better when it comes to data that might include the possibility of ethical dilemma or personal value system. Personally I think as long as humans are a factor at any level of scientific inquiry(perhaps even reading results) the deeper aspects of science will elude us.

Another consideration is that science does not offer the answers to everything, the whole truth. A personal question is that are you really understanding truth if you’re not experiencing the whole of it? Some things are rendered inoperable even if a small portion is missing.

If anything science has more in common with the peripheral aspects of religion that tried to explain phenomena in the world, but where science truly differs from the core thinking of any religion (or spiritual practice, or even some philosophies) is in the fact that religions are ultimately about being able to live inside yourself. Consciousness is a heavy burden, and science doesn't offer our species much in the way with dealing with it.

I dig science personally, but I would agree with #126, I assume the truth of science because to doubt it would seriously screw with my world view. It's the same with any doctrine of thought, and their are certain points in science where you simply most continue on based on faith in certain principles that are not provable.

The Nazi/Soviet comment is rather strong, but the idea behind it is sound. Any learning is essentially conditioning, a form of brainwashing, minus the negative linguistic aspects. We call something brainwashing if somebody is learning something we consider bad, or in a method we consider to be bad. By we, I mean the particular society or group observing the teaching methods. I forget who said it, Foucault perhaps, but the quote "knowledge is power" is generally misunderstood. He didn't mean knowledge makes you powerful, he meant that knowledge is the assertion of power over others. I think he meant political power in that essay, but it carries over to other strata of life.

-Hiroaki


129.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 08:02
anon@212.137
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 08:02
Jul 26, 2001, 08:02
anon@212.137
 
Hi, my name's Bob and I'm a Squirrel.
Squirrels have a great life. Pinch nuts, store them, ravage through rubbish, pinch nuts..
Anyway, the problem is that most Squirrels take the piss and go pinching other peoples nuts and stuff like that.
In the absence of Squirrel police what we could do with is some do-gooder that teaches these little buggers right from wrong.
Now then.. if I was to call myself Bob the do-gooder and start telling people, sorry Squirrels, that I'm here to kick ass and teach people that good is right and evil is wrong then I'd probably get paid a fortune in nuts.

That's it!
That's what the world needs. A Squirrel in a white cloth preaching the word of the.. ah! There's a flaw in the plan.
I don't have any foundation.
Tell you what I'll call my dad the King Squirrel.
That way I can rattle on about my dad being the king of good and I can be his ambassador. Perfect.
Now all I need to do is rope in as many weak minded, er, disciples as possible.

Before long I'll have them eating out of my hands.
Either that or I'll get run over.
Watch this space.

-Bob
128.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 04:49
anon@4.33
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 04:49
Jul 26, 2001, 04:49
anon@4.33
 
Science is a religion? If so, then it's the first 'religion' I've seen that knows it can be wrong and is doing everything it can to keep itself from falling into the depths of ignorance. It's the first 'religion' that does not claim to have all the answers to life, the universe, and everything, admits its areas of ignorance, and strives to correct it. It's the only 'religion' where you can test everything they tell you. Does gravity accelerate objects at 9.8m/s^2 at the surface of the earth? Does Mars rotate around the sun? Get out a sheet of paper, a pencil, and figure it out. Science is not a religion. It's a systematic way of thinking that, more often than not, exposes falsehoods and lies far more readily than, say, praying to gods or goddesses. Those who tell you that it is only seek to belittle ways of thinking that have exposed their delusions.


As for the poster of #126? He or she compares teachers of science to 'brainwashers', 'Soviets' and 'Nazis'. Does this sound like rational thinking?
127.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 04:30
anon@217.5
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 04:30
Jul 26, 2001, 04:30
anon@217.5
 
"As well, the "let him cast the first stone" quote often used by the guilty to disarm their ignorant critics is also wrong."

#126 I agree with nearly everything you have said. But for the comment above, the specific verse in the Bible states in Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." In other words everybody is guilty of sin, not just those that participated with the prostitute. That includes you and I.

Also the quote from John 8:7 specifically does not mention that all the people involved were only those that have sinned with her either... "So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at here first." NKJV

#124 :Some scholars believe that it was intended to forewarn Christians of the coming persecution by the Emperor Nero."

This is a common interpretation from some but not all. Did Nero cause all "small and great, rich and poor, free and slave to receive a mark on their right hand or forehead so that no man may buy or sell unless he had the mark."? Revelation 13. This is possible now when you look into "Digital Angel" technology or Identichips.

As for Maitreya, he is probably the best candidate at the moment for "the man of sin". http://www.maitrya.org and http://www.maitreya.com You will find these sites packed with occult knowledge and some other incredible things.
126.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 03:05
anon@209.161
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 03:05
Jul 26, 2001, 03:05
anon@209.161
 
#48 points out, without apparently knowing it, the mistakes made by many who neither understand nor practice (if their word is to be believed) their professed Christianity. There is nothing about not judging - in the common sense of the word - in Christianity, nor about pride in the way it is meant by most people when they use that word. The judgement spoken of is more about saying, for example, "such and such a class of people are not capable of being saved, under any circumstances." As well, the "let him cast the first stone" quote often used by the guilty to disarm their ignorant critics is also wrong. The persons in question were all guilty of adultery with the very woman they wished to see stoned. They, in particular, were not in a position to be her judges because they had sinned with her themselves. As for pride, that is better translated as haughtiness.

I like a good Randian as much as anyone, but they often tend to follow her lead in misinterpretation and fail to investigate on their own. I've often wondered if she did this purposely. Her tirades against the idea of Original Sin are another example of her mistaken notions influencing her followers. My understanding of that concept is that it means that the most perfect human flesh will never be utterly perfect, and will always have some sin. So far we have no counterexamples, and lacking perfect wisdom, we will never have them. The point of the concept is that no one will live forever without the mercy of God, available through his son, the Redeemer, Christ.

The contradictions are in the misinterpreters, of both sides.

Now, the idea of "religion" is a cute trick certain people use these days. It is a way of discrediting a particular worldview by pretending that not all worldviews (theirs especially) are religions. But they are. Every system of thought is an identical concept with the concept meant by the word religion. Fascism with some pagan notions mixed in is the worldview, or religion, that gave us the Kyoto Treaty, for example.

So when you hear your brainwashers in government school tell you how they're teaching you science, and that you come from nothing and are a descendant of a chemical mixture, you can believe it if you like. But you've swallowed a religion no different from the ones the Soviets and the Nazis brainwashed into their kids when they were in power.
125.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 26, 2001, 00:33
anon@202.145
Re: Pride Jul 26, 2001, 00:33
Jul 26, 2001, 00:33
anon@202.145
 
t
124.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 25, 2001, 19:34
anon@134.197
Re: Pride Jul 25, 2001, 19:34
Jul 25, 2001, 19:34
anon@134.197
 
First of all, the Book of Revelation does not necessarily predict the end of the world.

Some scholars believe that it was intended to forewarn Christians of the coming persecution by the Emperor Nero.

Whatever the case, I still don't understand your list about "Maitreya." Where did you get that from?
123.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 25, 2001, 17:48
anon@217.81
Re: Pride Jul 25, 2001, 17:48
Jul 25, 2001, 17:48
anon@217.81
 
Sorry for such a long post but it is allowed isn't it?

"And I still don't understand your problem with harmony among religions. The Book of Revelations is highly contraversial, and you're probably interpreting it incorrectly."

I should post this info again because I think it has extremely important implications.

1. "ONE WHICH WILL SYNTHESIZE THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD"
2. "Maitreya explains that... a great SPIRITUAL PATH will be revealed, and if followed, human liberation is GUARANTEED! "
3. He is the One, the Incredible, the Powerful. He is the Merciful, the Compassionate One, He is the Destroyer, the Creator, the Preserver, the Sustainer. There is none beside Him.
4. Maitreya is Christ; He is Krishna; He is the Vishnu, He is Brahma. He is Shiva. Maitreya is the first Adam and the second, and the third... He is Mohammed and Bab and the Babas. He is the Teacher and He is the Student. There is none beside Him.
5. Maitreya is the Buddha and the Bodhisattva. He is none but the Nirvana itself. He is the Light seen in the moment of death. He is the Enlightened One, the Truth and the Way. There is none beside Him.
6. Maitreya is the Father and the Mother. He is the Son and The Holy Ghost. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He is the first and the last. There is none beside Him.

I don't know about you, but this sounds like Hitler number 2 to me.

1. Revelation 13 verses 5-8 "The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for 42 months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast..."
2. 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 verses 3 "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself above everything that is called god or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
3. Daniel 11 verses 36-39 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard of things against the God of god's. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. He will show no regard for the god's of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all."

Hence the words of Maitreya, "There is none beside Him."

This is the problem that I have with harmony among religions. Whether you think the Bible is wrong or not, these are some serious words that relate exactly to what is happening. Whether this is the end time or not I'll leave it up to you.
122.
 
Re: Christ on a bicycle
Jul 25, 2001, 16:55
anon@24.92
Re: Christ on a bicycle Jul 25, 2001, 16:55
Jul 25, 2001, 16:55
anon@24.92
 
I don't care what y'all say. I spent way too many sleepless nights getting through DooM/DooMII. And after that, I spent WAY too much cash on Dwango making all y'all old schoolers my bitch. Step on Romero all you want, that motherfucker IS a game god in my book. And all you that can easily jump on the bandwagon and beat him down are just showing your ages. Daikatana? Just a fuckup. He'll get it right sooner or later. And when he does, us Romero backers are gonna be there to say, "Told you so, fag0t! He finally made you his bitch after all!" Give me a 'Hell Yeah!' guys! Guys? Ummm.... <crickets chirping>... mommy?
121.
 
Religious nonsense
Jul 25, 2001, 16:32
anon@195.92
Religious nonsense Jul 25, 2001, 16:32
Jul 25, 2001, 16:32
anon@195.92
 
If I saw you guys in the pub talking about bloody praying when I'm ordering a pint at the bar for me and me mates and I should turn around quickly and one of you slightly nudges me causing me to spill of drop of me ale I'd tek you both outside and nail yis both to the fuckin' lamppost. Upside down if you prefer.
Now fuck off.
These games is all about shootin' aliens and such and generally ripping peoples limbs apart and all I see at the moment is you faggots talking about praying and sunday school.
Gay bastards.
You seem to have us all confused with someone that gives a shite.
These forums are alright when women like you don't get involved.
120.
 
Christ on a bicycle
Jul 25, 2001, 15:50
Christ on a bicycle Jul 25, 2001, 15:50
Jul 25, 2001, 15:50
 
How the Hell do you go from Romero to religion?

Well, he does thnk he's God...:)

-tAE-

Avatar 473
119.
 
Re: Pride
Jul 25, 2001, 15:04
anon@134.197
Re: Pride Jul 25, 2001, 15:04
Jul 25, 2001, 15:04
anon@134.197
 
Your definition of prayer is incomplete. It may also mean: "entreaty to a person." Which is exactly how prayers to Mary are viewed as.

And once again, regarding the rosary, my argument still stands firm. It isn't about the number of words, it's about the meaning and devotion during the prayer.

Paul highly recommended celebacy. As I said before, it is a disciplinary rule, and not a doctrinal rule. The Church doesn't forbid you to marry. If you want to marry, don't be a priest and serve God in another way. In the Old Testament, there is an example of God forbidding one of his priest's to marry. Lay ministry is an option.

And the quote from Timothy regarding those who deviate from the way and forbid marriage doesn't apply to the Church because the Church doesn't forbid marriage. In fact, marriage is considered a Sacrament. During the Middle Ages, there were a number of heretical groups which did indeed wish to forbid all people to marry.

Pope Leo's comment most certainly concerns the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Jesus told the 11 that who's sins they retain will be retained in Heaven, and who's sins they forgive will be forgiven. Priests have been ordained through the ages, and this power has been assumed to be carried on since the earliest days of the Church.

I believe in one of the letters, Paul discusses confession and reconciliation.

Priests are required to forgive. They judge sorrow, not guilt.

God indeed can forgive without the assistance of priests. Many are unable to seek forgiveness through the Sacrament, and if they are truly sorry, their sins will be forgiven.

The comments of Pope Innocent III, Saint Gerome, and the Cardinal Gibbons are probably taken out of context. Besides, Pope Innocent III wasn't one of the Church's most devout popes. The Pope can be wrong, you know. The Middle Ages were a time of great corruption in the Church. It was a powerful binding force in Europe, and was thus susceptible to corruption.

And I still don't understand your problem with harmony among religions. The Book of Revelations is highly contraversial, and you're probably interpreting it incorrectly.

Nobody wants to force anything on anybody. People want acceptance and brotherhood.
118.
 
Re: I think we are forgetting something here
Jul 25, 2001, 14:52
Re: I think we are forgetting something here Jul 25, 2001, 14:52
Jul 25, 2001, 14:52
 
In the case of Tomb Raider, it is my understanding that what happened was that Eidos, which was a new publisher at the time, was starving for a sequel. They had signed the development team (I don't remember what/if their name was) to a deal wherein TR was Eidos' Intellectual Property (this is somewhat common practice I think). When the development team didn't want to "belt out" another game right away, opting instead to work on another game and make some improvements/changes to the TR engine/idea before a second game, Eidos canned them and brought in another designer. In fact, they have done this (changing the development team) for each of the TR titles, which is why we had five games in five years, none of which made much effort to innovate the game, genre or engine.

Now, if Eidos owns the IP rights to the Deus Ex "franchise" it might be entirely possible that Spector could get the boot. However, since:

1. Eidos learned some hard lessons from the Tomb Raider fiasco (marginally better games breed lower sales and a bad PR image).
2. Spector delivered Deus Ex to high sales and high critical praise in a timely fashion, and
3. Ion Storm-Austin hasn't been as problematic,

it stands to reason that they won't do anything bad to the Deus Ex franchise.

As for Thief, I dunno. And I wonder who owns/controls Anachronox at this point.

Schnapple

117.
 
I think we are forgetting something here
Jul 25, 2001, 14:27
anon@64.24
I think we are forgetting something here Jul 25, 2001, 14:27
Jul 25, 2001, 14:27
anon@64.24
 
With Romero AND Hall gone, Eidos is going to transform the Deus Ex AND the Thief franchises into the next Tomb Raider. Romero, now he may have failed at Daikatana but he has done marvelous game design in the past. Hall just plain rocks, and I'm sure the two of them, together or seperate, will continue making a splash in our industry.

That I'm not worried about. Its when Eidos lets the desire for money and (in)fame destroy wonderful games...

My 2c

Anonymous Thief/Deus Ex Fanatic
116.
 
Re: Disappointed
Jul 25, 2001, 12:38
Re: Disappointed Jul 25, 2001, 12:38
Jul 25, 2001, 12:38
 
"..this was a marvellous opportunity to discuss the impact of 2 key players in video gamings recent history and we end up suffering religion."

Hahaha. My thoughts exactly

135 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Older