GreyBeard Comments

Page 1 of 20

  • iPhone 6 sold 10 million units in three days

  • GreyBeard 23/09/2014

    Its not having much impact whatsoever on how developers think because the smartphone, and specifically the iOS market has been huge for a long time now. The reality is that its just another SKU with slightly higher specs than before, further fragmenting the market and adding even more pressure to QA test across multiple devices.

    The funny part is that as the technology improves, so does the cost (in time, effort, and ultimately, money) of actually utilizing it. The end result being if you actually want to use that new power, you are in fact restricting your market to buyers of the latest iteration - which isn't really a great idea given that the entire appstore economic model is built on commodity sales through a multi-platform interface.

    In a nutshell, visibility on the appstore is still the paramount concern, closely followed by pricing. The technology is actually not all that important outside of the number of man-hours required to leverage it, and in any cases is a negative as part of opportunity cost.

    By the time developers start using the iPhone 6 to its best advantage, the iPhone 7 or later will be out, and the same mugs suckling on the Apple upgrade teat will end up paying another $1000 for the same old shit.
    Reply +1
  • Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain Snake and Quiet gameplay revealed

  • GreyBeard 18/09/2014


    Dude. Metal Gear *is* (as you put it) a series about crazy freakish looking people with mad powers and shit going on.

    And as for "unless you can come up with a decent, proper, actual contextual reason as to why shes in a bikini and thong. Maybe there is one, Id love to hear it."

    Here's a radical thought, why not wait until you have more information before rushing to judgement? Maybe there is a contextual reason, no doubt it'll hold up to about as much scrutiny as to why Mystique looks the way she does, or the way the Hulk's pants seem to be remarkably more elastic than the rest of his gear (i.e very little).

    "Context" or "Sexism" is not the issue. Its the pedantry that annoys me.
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 18/09/2014


    Quiet seems pretty mutant-y to me. I mean with the weird darkness around here eyes phasing in and out and stuff.

    Bottom line is that whether its a "mutant gene" or "nanomachines" its all make-believe anyway, so I don't see much difference at all.

    What I dug about it was seeing a super-powered mutant on the player's side, as opposed to on the antagonists - as is usual for a MGS title. That was far more intriguing to me than polygonal cleavage!
    Reply +3
  • GreyBeard 18/09/2014


    What annoys me is people who's only comment after seeing such an awesome passage of gameplay is to whinge about cosmetic details.

    Do you piss and moan through X-men because Mystique is a basically a nude woman with pasties and body-paint?
    Reply +2
  • Microsoft to buy Mojang for $2 billion - report

  • GreyBeard 10/09/2014

    I look at this as being less about xbox, than about MS entire OS/mobile/tablet strategy.

    Its an interesting move, and if it goes through I wonder how its going to affect other big players like Google, Amazon, and maybe even Apple's attitude to acquiring big IP in the long run.

    I can't see Sony being especially concerned, in fact I'd imagine they'd be relieved to see such a huge sum being utilized to secure a single IP/developer mainly associated with non-console platforms, rather than directly against PS4.
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 10/09/2014

    $2b is not "pocket change" to anyone. Its a very significant investment for any corporation even if they can easily afford to make it.

    Put it this way, it's a big bet. If it turns out a winner, great, but if it doesn't hard questions will get asked by shareholders as to why such a significant sum was expended on, relatively speaking, so little.
    Reply +2
  • Editor's blog: A brief note about "GamerGate"

  • GreyBeard 04/09/2014


    Yep. It's all just bullshit internet drama at its most lurid.

    What makes me chuckle is the apparent surprise of some media people that attempting to politicize gaming discussion wouldn't result in a complete shitstorm...

    The internet, volcanically overreacting over stuff? Who'd a thunk it!
    Reply +3
  • GreyBeard 04/09/2014


    The only "problem" with TLOU is the absence of female human antagonists (hunters) is a very notable omission in retrospect.

    This really sticks out given how it builds up Tess as being as cut-throat as Joel in the beginning.

    It's a clear double-standard which I'm fairly confident was employed simply to avoid controversy, although in the final analysis its actually rather sexist.

    Not that I consider it a big deal either way, its just an observation.
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014

    Last word is yours Guy.J.: (Verbatim)

    "What else would you expect to find in a stripclib" is indeed a moronic response that demonstrates a complete failure to understand the issue. Unfortunately that sort of thinking is very common. Your comparison with religious thinking is quite apt.
    "What makes you think God is real?"
    "Because it says so in the Bible."
    "What makes you think the Bible can be trusted?"
    "Because it's the word of God. DUH."
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Oh dear... I was afraid of that.

    And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with religious thinking or my lack of understanding "the issue".

    I simply believe its a matter of freedom of speech and expression. If I want to put a strip club in a game, and populate it accordingly I should be free to do so.

    If you don't like it, don't support it.

    Just don't act like it has no right to exist simply because you find it undesirable or distasteful.
    Reply +5
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014

    Hey, I'm still mystified by Guy.J's comment comparing the existentialism of God to that of strip clubs, was that brilliant satire or straight lunacy? Reply +1
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Thanks for the kind words, but having once argued Stu Campbell to a stalemate, this guy is bush-league in comparison!
    Reply +9
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    I'm through talking to you. You are either unable, or more likely, unwilling to see past your own projected prejudices and biases.

    You aren't worth the effort; Honestly I feel like I've thoroughly dismantled your argument and yet you still persist... repeating the same fallacies over and over ad nauseum.

    I can tell you think you are the "righteous one" in this discussion, but truthfully, you're not.

    You're just a lame-brained zealot who actually does more harm to the cause they support than any critic ever could. So please, keep talking :D

    You talk about progression, yet all you offer is repression. You talk about inclusiveness and yet all you argue for is the exclusion of scenarios you personally find distateful.

    So much for freedom of speech, eh?

    You are the worst sort of hypocrite, the "holier-than-thou" kind.
    Reply +12
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    No. I used the "she was asking for it" analogy to point out the fallacy of externally projecting intent and culpability, which is the crux of your argument.

    You are treating the fictional killing of a fictional stripper as being particularly egregious because of the character's appearance alone. And how the way that character was drawn "by a man for other men" -which is pure, baseless speculation especially given how so many talented game artists are female.

    The NPC's appearance is not an incitement to kill, unless you think that how someone dresses implicitly states willing victimhood. Which is an astonishingly sexist way to look at things, and is in no way borne out by exceptional treatment in the game's mechanics.

    Besides, what else would you expect to find in the back-rooms of a seedy nightclub? Knights in armour?

    As for your pitiful counter that:

    This Jack Thompson BS is just a pathetic attempt at the associate fallacy (Jack Thompson critcised games and he was wrong, you are criticising games therefore you are wrong)

    I never even considered Jack Thompson, I was think more along the lines of John Beyer, Mary Whitehouse and all the other "moral crusaders" who deign to impose their morality and world-view on other people.

    Fascist scum, one and all.
    Reply +8
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    I have no issues whatsoever with criticism. What I do take umbrage at is using derogatory terms like "misogynst" for anyone who dares to express a dissenting opinion.

    As for this

    DeLoftie: It is a straw man to say that by not discussing the man on man violence FemFreq is giving it a pass. Anita in her videos specifically says the videos are only dealing with the common tropes of using women. It is not approving of all the other tropes."

    Widge: Exactly.

    That is not a "straw man", it goes to the heart of the issue. Ironically what Anita does is create "straw man" arguments by selectively only picking scenarios that support her position.

    Which is entirely acceptable as a polemicist. Polemics -which are what all her videos are- are not about presenting both sides of an argument.

    However in the context of a discussion, such as this one, it is fair game to present it in broader context and criticize it in that scope.
    Reply +8
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Wow. I've never seen such a flailing nonsensical attempt at a response.

    You write this:

    1) SHE IS NOT A REAL PERSON. She is a character that was drawn, most likely by a male, for other males to look at. That is why she was placed in the game.

    They all there because they serve a mechanistic purpose.

    You follow it with this:

    2) It is sexualised violence because the game designers created a sex object for the gamer and then provided the tools where the gamer can kill that sex object, being aware that this was an allowed option by the games mechanics and physics engine.

    This is fallacious; What the developers don't do is make a distinction between gendered characters. Which makes sense because despite what you're saying you cannot have sex with these "sex objects". You can only interact with them in the same way you can with other supplemental targets: Avoid or kill.

    Don't you see that you are projecting all this? Any differentiation in what is appropriate conduct is based entirely on appearance and your prejudice of what that appearance connotes.

    As for your laughable attempt at trying to make distance between your stance and that of traditional right-wing repressives, we get this:

    3) No one has every claimed the harm is that causes imitation (straw man), the argument is that the pervasive nature of these tropes in video games creates a validation for sexist social norms.

    That's the classic "desensitization" argument presented with a leftist spin. IT IS NO DIFFERENT.

    Its the usual fall-back position taken in absence of any evidence of direct behavioural correlation between art and reality.

    Once again, it boils down to "if you aren't offended by what I am, you are a bad person." Which is an offensively paternalistic (my God, the irony) attitude, made worse by the double-speak in its presentation.
    Reply +13
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Absolutely correct, however that disdain didn't apparently have any impact on their massive commercial success.

    I'm not saying its a good thing, just pointing out that's the world we live in. And that being the case, I really don't see the same commercial imperatives as being any less applicable to gaming - particularly at the AAA level.

    I'm not a fan of stuff like GTA at all, but apparently millions of people are... and until that stops being the case there'll be more to come.
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Stop being defensive and rude and engage with my point.

    Killing is bad. Period. But this is exploitation fiction so its presence is dictated by genre expectation and should be considered socially harmless UNLESS you somehow believe that its likely to cause imitation.

    If you believe in the risk of imitation/desensitization why are you fixated only on females when males are far more likely to be on the receiving end of the violence both in the fiction and in reality?

    And while we're at it, why not think of the children?

    Oh no, you can't do that because that's the province of the right-wing... and you're really so different. Hah.

    But anyway back on point. So its "sexualized" violence just because the victim looks a certain way. That sounds to me like a "she was asking for it" justification, but hey whatever.

    You are imposing sexuality on gender non-specific violence, its like calling a fps racist because some of the soldier models you shoot are non-white!

    Its specious and nonsensical. It only makes sense if you ignore the broader context of the ubiquity of the violence within the scenario.

    Ironically though without a broader social context of supposed harm, what actually is being protested here?

    Being a fucking hit man isn't problematic so long as you don't kill strippers? Kratos can graphically dismember Gods but abusing a temple maiden is beyond the pale...

    We're somehow supposed to overlook all the OTHER mayhem because... because?

    Does the word misanthropy mean anything to you? Why not choose that rather than dashing straight to misogyny?
    Reply +15
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    You consider it "sexualized violence", I say that's a judgement that you are imposing on the media yourself.

    Are the available commands to act upon a female victim specifically different to those available for a male? No, they aren't, so in fact the "sexualization" of the act is purely visual, not functional.

    What you are doing is conflating two basic exploitation principles that are deeply embedded in pop-culture.

    1. Sex sells. The eroticisation of the female form for commercial gain is ubiquitous in our culture. Employed in everything from advertising and fashion, to music and movies. Attractiveness is considered saleable and valuable in a commercial sense.
    That games should somehow be exempt from this is ludicrous.

    2. Violence is popular. Blame it on a taste for escapism, a need for safe, cathartic release of negative emotions - our culture loves depictions of violence and killing.

    Games are especially prone to this because killing and conflict is a conveniently repetitive risk/reward scenario, and most games are extremely repetitive out of the basic need to have a central, iterated and polished play mechanic. This is not easily avoidable because they are as much working devices, as pieces of staged entertainment and there's only a finite amount of mechanics that can be implemented within time/budget.

    Which brings us to the core of the issue: Profit motive.

    AAA games are expensive as hell to make. They are high-risk, but potentially high-reward for their backers. Which leads them to embrace populist aspects so as best to insure a positive return on investment.

    So, it makes sense to inject populist elements like sex and violence so as to bolster a titles commercial viability - especially as its aimed at a "mature" (i.e. exploitation hungry) market.

    This is why nothing is going to change. Anita can cherry-pick where the three elements I mentioned above converge all she wants, but the basic reasons behind their employment will stand.
    Reply +14
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014


    What on earth did you expect from a game called Hitman? Where you play the eponymous paid-for-hire killer?

    Its exploitation entertainment, so why complain about it not being an exemplar of political correctness?

    I mean, do all the male "props" that the player has the option to murder (or not) not count? And yes, they are all "props" because being a game it has a mechanical function to serve. And that requires a steady feed of new potential "targets" to knock down.
    Reply +8
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014

    What cracks me up is that nowhere, NOWHERE, in all of this are any actual concrete steps being taken to rein in the lunatic fringe.

    I mean where's the lobby for Twitter to do a better job at policing their service for terroristic threats? Bomb scares, death threats, etc. Fixing that thing is not a problem for "gamers"; its one for politicians, law enforcement, and especially the fucking providers of this service!

    Social media is a massive enabler, not just because it provides a means to get sort-of "up close and personal" with your target (while remaining quasi-anonynous), but its a perfect method of garnering the widescale attention these dysfunctional types crave.

    Cleaning that shit up would be infinitely more effective than any sort of "think of the children" rhetoric about the content of games. Which lest we forget, is what all of this has more or less sprung from. Not offended by the same things we are? You are morally bankrupt and need our guidance...
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014

    Anyone else noticed the way this whole debate has gone is really reminiscent of the ludicrous circus that is contemporary American politics?

    Its the cartoonishly evil versus the unbearably self-righteous and condescending! The bleeding edge of adversarial politics where when one side says, "let's have lunch", the other side must reply that "lunch is over! We don't need it!"* just because they have to take an oppositional stance.

    *Brownie points for anyone that knows who I'm paraphrasing with that analogy.

    PS. For the record I'm talking about this whole phenomenon, not just this thread. And I'm not trying to tar everyone participating with the same brush - its just the lunatic fringe on both sides of the aisle driving a lot of the worst excessses.
    Reply +9
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014

    "If you see hateful, harassing speech, take a public stand against it and make the gaming community a more enjoyable space to be in."

    What is this supposed to mean exactly? People have been taking "a public stand" and that's what has escalated the hate and sectarianism!

    The keyword used by Boogie2988 and notably not used here is Tolerance. A word which shockingly nowadays seems to be considered dubious, particularly by commentators sitting to the left of the aisle.

    Tolerance is not capitulation, its the only rational solution. Because when some (doubtlessly well-meaning) knucklehead tells you "I don't think we should tolerate bigoted opinions", the obvious answer is well what happens when your opposition fails to make them stop?

    You shout louder to make them give up? Do you try and suppress the spread of their opinion by excluding them from forums and other places where they can spread their "hate"? What happens when they still won't change their views? How far down the rabbit-hole are you going to go for your just cause?

    We've just exhausted discussion, suppression, and exclusion, so what's left? Re-education? Imprisonment? What's the final solution?

    Tolerance means putting up with shit we as individuals don't like, its the price we pay for not having people jumping on our shit every time we express a view they disagree with.

    Its not pretty and its not perfect, but its a damn sight better than endless conflict.

    Well unless you can effectively monetize the war, which I'm sad to say is precisely what a lot of the internet media propogating this horse-shit is doing.
    Reply +28
  • Sega claims Gearbox led the marketing for Aliens: Colonial Marines

  • GreyBeard 04/09/2014

    Promotion is one thing, knowingly publishing a title in a shitty state is another.
    And they aren't even remotely equal in magnitude.
    Reply +1
  • Why we need more developers like Zoe Quinn

  • GreyBeard 30/08/2014

    A don't know about a "future" for this sort of title, especially when something like Alter Ego was published by Activision in 1986 (in both specifically male and female versions), and ummm... nothing changed.

    The "interesting" stuff has always been out there, individuals have been making individualistic games year-in, year-out since the dawn of the medium (Hell, how many genres did Jaron Lanier invent with Moondust in 1983), but only recently has the media taken any notice.

    The whole "indie game" movement is a media-construct, which I don't have a problem with whatsoever, but what does grind my gears is the abject lack of historical perspective they are placed in. The true pioneers -like the two titles referenced above- are largely forgotten, which is a travesty of justice in my opinion, and a sad reminder of how poor the gaming press is about covering anything but current affairs.
    Reply +14
  • Leading creators back latest Tropes vs Women video

  • GreyBeard 27/08/2014


    The titles Anita highlights all sit fairly comfortably within the "action" genre. So, I'd argue that the full spectrum already exists and she simply cherry-picks for material that supports her message.

    Death Wish may be trashy, but its populist trash so is pretty much guaranteed to be more widespread due to the commercial imperative of the business.

    Is it problematic that it uses graphic rape to act as a plot device to spur our hero onto his vigilante mission -maybe so, but the real selling point of the movie(s) and why people kept making the damn things was seeing Bronson mercilessly gunning down deserving low-lifes.

    That vicarious thrill of cutting through the gordion knot of the judicial system and dispensing "justice" was what put bums on seats.

    And with the games Anita highlights, you see the exact same principle.

    These games are about thrill-killing, which is straight-up morally dubious in the first place, but... popular.

    And ultimately that just shows why despite all the controversy, nothing is actually being achieved by this sort of specious criticism. You could remove/replace every female character from these games and they'd still be morally bankrupt!

    The world will not be a better place post-Sarkeesian because in her haste to make currency for her feminism, she's missing the forest for the trees.

    If you wish to be offended, be offended by the lack of humanity shown by offering death-as-entertainment, not the gender representation of its mechanics.
    Reply +10
  • GreyBeard 27/08/2014

    What kind of bothers me is that Anita's stuff is presented by sites like this as being straight commentary or discussion, and not as the forthright polemic that it is.

    A key attribute of polemicism is that it not only stands for the point being made, but explicitly stands AGAINST oppositional viewpoints and attempts to diminish them as part of the argument. This is evidenced by the way only footage in support of her argument is presented in her videos. They are not meant for discussion, they are political statements.

    And like all political statements, they are deserving of scrutiny and criticism, and not just laid out there as "inconvenient truths".
    Reply +15
  • GreyBeard 27/08/2014

    I respect Anita and support her right to publicize her socio-political agenda.

    However, that doesn't mean to say I'm oblivious to how transparently disingenuous and polemical it all is. Ultimately what it boils down to is an inability to accept that most game are closer to exploitation movies than serious dramatic discourse.

    In simple terms, more Death Wish than the The Accused. Which is kind of a no-brainer when you consider the economics of the market and the functional requirements of form and genre.

    In the final analysis, while Ms Sarkeesian's criticisms are valid, it seems peculiarly opportunistic and rather specious, to fixate on games for such issues. Its a convenient "gap in the market" with which to gain visibility, but other than that its no more insightful than doing a series critical of slasher movies or similar grindhouse fare where similarly "objectionable" content is also common.
    Reply +15
  • PlayStation Network returns online following DDOS attack

  • GreyBeard 25/08/2014

    The bomb hoax tweet... my God. Why on earth would you do something so fucking stupid in today's America. That's straight-up terrorism in the present climate and pretty much guarantees the harshest possible treatment when the authorities catch up with them. And they will, because its absolutely not the sort of thing that can be seen to go unpunished.

    It just boggles my mind that anyone would be so colossally stupid or arrogant enough to pull this sort of stunt "for the lulz". And that's exactly what it is, there is no agenda, no goal, no real reason for any of this bullshit.

    Talk about throwing your life away...
    Reply +23
  • Is there more to Quantum Break than run-of-the-mill third-person shooting?

  • GreyBeard 20/08/2014

    Sounds like a combination of God Of War: Ascenscions time powers with a dash of Arkham Origin's crime-scene mode. In simple terms an animation playback manipulation system stage-dressed to fit the fiction.

    Nothing wrong with that, just not terribly new or exciting.
    Reply -1
  • Watch six minutes of Bloodborne gameplay

  • GreyBeard 20/08/2014

    Looks amazing -more due to art direction than tech- and thanks to its pedigree, will most likely play amazingly well too.

    That's why its my most anticipated title for next year.
    Reply +2
  • Sony's Gamescom 2014 briefing

  • GreyBeard 12/08/2014

    The biggest shocker has to be P.T.

    Wait til word gets around what it is... OMFG.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 12/08/2014

    Well, at least it wasn't just a rehash of E3 like MS' shit-show earlier today. Reply -2
  • Space Engineers, Super Hot, Smite, Goat Simulator head Xbox One indie charge

  • GreyBeard 12/08/2014


    Irritating as fuck seems a more apt description.
    Reply -3
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusive to Xbox One

  • GreyBeard 12/08/2014

    Guess we know when Uncharted4 is launching then... Reply +9
  • Microsoft's Gamescom 2014 briefing

  • GreyBeard 12/08/2014

    Abysmal waste of time imho. Reply 0
  • Sony is being sued for Killzone failing to deliver "native 1080p" multiplayer

  • GreyBeard 08/08/2014


    To answer your question regarding scaling:

    Both single and multiplayer modes generate a 1920x1080 framebuffer.

    The difference is the way they create the framebuffer in MP mode is basically by drawing half-size (alternate horizontal pixels) and using interpolation techniques to fill in the rest

    There is no post-process scaling and no interlacing. It is a 1080p image that is being output, not a pair of 960x1080 frames being drawn alternately.

    The case is a dead-duck.
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 07/08/2014


    Noone, and I mean noone builds a framebuffer using a progressive scan method, hence the "p" in 1080p. Every texture gets scaled at some point, so objectively there is no absolute resolution.

    1080p is a terminology that solely refers to video output.

    If you don't understand that distinction, you get silliness like this.
    Reply +7
  • GreyBeard 07/08/2014

    Utterly frivolous lawsuit that I'd expect to have zero chance of going anywhere.

    1080p is an output resolution, so how the internal framebuffer is rendered is moot.
    Reply +4
  • Video Games: The Movie review

  • GreyBeard 05/08/2014

    The slightly odd thing about all this is that the glaring omissions aren't coming from a position of American exceptionalism, because a lot of pioneering American developers and companies are amongst the worst served by this narrow vision.

    Instead of actual history, the basis appears to be in nostalgia, which is a very different thing. History is not what your first console was, that's nostalgia, and as a kid you aren't necessarily aware of what is going on in the larger world - especially in a time far less globalized than it is today.

    Its a shame.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 04/08/2014

    Anyone else getting pig-sick of these exclusively US-centric cultural histories?

    The "great video-game crash of 1983" was a non-event for everyone outside of NA, where are the stories of the home-computer revolution that had a vastly more profound and lasting impact on gaming business and culture than Atari shitting the bed?
    Reply +8
  • Dead or Alive 5's Bath and Bedtime DLC could be its creepiest yet

  • GreyBeard 04/08/2014

    I love the fact that this sort of mild titillation is somehow a thing on the internet, when the internet is basically 90% porn! Reply +7
  • Gearbox explains why it should be dropped from Aliens lawsuit

  • GreyBeard 03/08/2014


    The first thing the guy says in the video is that Gearbox "released" A:CM.
    Which is of course completely untrue, because they aren't the PUBLISHER.

    At which point I turned it off.

    Like I said before, hate on Gearbox all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that SEGA were the ones who sold it to you knowing full-well about the quality of the work.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 02/08/2014


    Read this:

    That's why SEGA didn't do shit, and why Gearbox have every likelihood of extricating themselves from the class-action suit we're talking about.

    Also, bear in mind that the source of a lot of this has DIRECT involvement with SEGA, but not with Gearbox. Hence you should weight their observations about SEGA's actions a lot more heavily than with Gearbox, as the latter are speculative.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 02/08/2014


    Of course they had a choice! They had multiple choices and numerous opportunities *over years* to make aforesaid choices!

    If SEGA were the ones being "conned" why didn't they take legal action against Gearbox? Instead of, um, releasing the game and trying to recoup their costs that way?

    Honest to God, the amount of mental gymnastics used in some posts here to avoid the OBVIOUS CONCLUSION about who's at fault is spectacular.
    Reply -2
  • GreyBeard 01/08/2014


    That's illogical dude. Why would they knock a mostly built wall down at the last minute?

    And even if they did, would you really feel good about selling thousands of copies of said fence as a wall?

    You can't pass the buck on this!

    Here's the thing: Every piece of work relating to the project belongs to SEGA, they bought and paid for it. So if there was a "good" version to be finished. THEY WOULD HAVE IT.

    However, evidently it doesn't exist, and we know this because somehow they signed off on ALPHA, then BETA, then FINAL MASTER builds.

    That's 3 distinct stages where the publisher has content complete builds to evaluate. CONTENT COMPLETE, not just a few bits and bobs they can demo.

    I'm not trying to absolve Gearbox by saying this,what I'm getting at is by publishing it SEGA made THEIR PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM.

    That's a real dick move because it's undeniable a deliberate, premeditated act. Whereas making a "bad game" is not something anyone deliberately sets out to do for obvious reasons.

    And I have to say if SEGA were so incompetent about checking the state of the builds they were receiving and the disparity between them and the promo builds, what other parts of the production process did they fuck up?

    Bad external producers and constant interference from corporate can ruin the work of any team, no matter how hard working or talented. So in all fairness you can't even absolve SEGA from being responsible for the state of the project generally without knowing more in detail about the ins and outs of production.

    But hey, if you want to make a scapegoat out of Gearbox, go right ahead. Just remember that the guys really responsible for this clusterfuck are probably chuckling about how they've managed to shift the blame off of themselves.
    Reply -2
  • GreyBeard 31/07/2014


    The key thing is this:

    If you hire somebody to do a job, and they aren't doing it well. Who's the asshole for not doing something about it?

    You're the boss, and the work is going to go out to all your customers under your banner, and you let this shit roll on for fucking years...

    This isn't a one-time thing, there will be numerous stages at which you can take the situation by the scruff of the neck and sort it out. But you don't, you let it roll on and eventually push it out the door regardless...

    If you allow that to happen, YOU are the asshole. Because it's not just a case that you facilitated the whole fiasco, you gave it your stamp of approval all down the line.

    That's not something anyone else can do!

    By accepting those milestones and making payment for them, SEGA took complete responsibility for the state of the project.

    The buck literally stops there.
    Reply -7
  • GreyBeard 31/07/2014


    Not a chance in hell.

    SEGA knew what they were getting every step of the way. Every milestone build would've been put through QA in order for it to be ratified as fulfilling the contractual terms. Without that assent, why would they make the payment? They wouldn't.

    If that didn't happen -for whatever reason- then they are incompetent, negligent, idiots who clearly don't give two shits about the quality of their product, and as such its all their fault.

    More likely they did QA, and decided, "Fuck it, its good enough".

    They certainly made that choice with the final build, which they were clearly happy enough with to mass produce.

    So basically, regardless of whether Gearbox "fucked" SEGA (which is only possible due to SEGA's own incompetence at managing the project), or not, they (SEGA) were the ones that "fucked you", the buyer, by duplicating, promoting, and selling the thing at full RRP.

    That choice to publish and be damned was nothing whatsoever to do with Gearbox, because that is a publishing decision.
    Reply -1
  • GreyBeard 31/07/2014


    You clearly have no idea of what a milestone is. Because if you did, you wouldn't have made such a moronic statement.
    Reply -17
  • GreyBeard 31/07/2014

    This should be all on SEGA. If you disagree you know nothing about how game development and funding work. Reply -20