PlugMonkey Comments

Page 1 of 72

  • Rust dev angers fans by announcing new prototype Riftlight

  • PlugMonkey 28/07/2014

    To be fair, it doesn't take much to anger video game 'fans'. I'll add "not adopting a suicidal single product business plan" to the list.

    If you don't start pre-production on your next game until you've finished production on your current game, then you will go bust. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but sooner or later you will have to rush a half baked idea into full production simply because your entire production team is sitting twiddling their thumbs, and the project will fail and your studio will sink without a trace.

    This is why crunch kills studios too, BTW. All hands to the pumps until the last minute and no-one exploring what the next game should be until it's too late. Sooner or later, it WILL kill you.

    But hey, at least the 'fans' will be happy.
    Reply +3
  • Who framed Roger Ebert?

  • PlugMonkey 28/07/2014

    I've never really understood this debate. Of course games are art. What else would they be? Science? Some of it is disposable, some of it isn't - just like all art forms. I don't really like attempts to define my art as Art, and your art as not art at all. Art is a spectrum, and everything is on that spectrum somewhere.

    Ebert was an absolute legend though. You know he used to write Russ Meyer movies? I'll leave you with the opening sentence of his Pearl Harbor review:

    "Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.
    Reply 0
  • Yogventures dev to "dissolve" following Yogscast-backed project failure

  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2014

    @TarickStonefire

    Yeah, but it wasn't their money either. If you want to give $35k of your own money to one of your mates for 2 weeks work that's fine. Possibly stupid, definitely generous, but otherwise fine.

    If an investor gives you the money it's in agreement that you will spend it on producing what you're supposed to - that's why you can't just spend it on Ferraris, not even if it's Kickstarter funds rather than a proper investor - and that agreement includes getting good value. I'm pretty sure that is enshrined in law somewhere to stop folks from siphoning all the investor's funds into the pockets of their nearest and dearest in return for token contributions and then merrily declaring the company bankrupt. I think the courts are wise to that one.

    If what's happened here had been deliberate rather than incompetent, then that would undoubtedly be fraud. The incompetence is so staggering (the Watchdog builder analogy was supposed to illustrate that this isn't some finer point of business you'd need an expert for, it's something you'd expect anyone to know) that it starts to nudge towards something akin to negligence. I don't genuinely think there's a case there, but my god it's daft.

    Anyway, I mean no harm. I read the story and was boggled at how it could possibly happen, came on here to say so and you already had. I read the rest of the thread and none of your replies this morning should really have been necessary. You nailed it 1st post. "How does that even happen?" and "there really isn't anything more to say". Trust me to write a thousand words to agree that there's really nothing to add...:chatty:
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2014

    @TarickStonefire

    Well, I was adding my agreement to what you said. It's not much, but I hate just clicking the little +. Now I'm backing away slowly.

    (Criminal negligence was a bit of an exaggeration, admittedly, but they were doing it with other people's money. You do that on purpose, it's fraud. This borders of fraud by negligence - if that were a real thing.)
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2014

    @TarickStonefire

    All of which brings us back round to your opening post.

    How does that even happen?
    I mean, seriously. How? Who does that?

    How much sympathy would anyone have for some chump on Watchdog who'd paid a builder $35k up front and then never seen them again? Not a lot! That's not naivety, it's criminal negligence.
    Reply +1
  • Google Play removing "free" label for F2P games with in-app purchases

  • PlugMonkey 22/07/2014

    @Uncompetative

    Dungeon Keeper you can play the whole game at no cost. So that's alright. Right?

    Obviously not, but the issue is that the words 'play' and 'game' need inverted commas, not with its definition of FREE (as Robbie was quite non idiotically pointing out).
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 22/07/2014

    @grassyknoll

    As of 2012 League of Legends had 98 Champions and 270 skins for sale at a grand total of $2410.

    $2410 is rather a lot of money for a video game, but why would you plan to buy 98 Champions and 270 skins, grassy? It's the same.

    Candy Crush Saga there's no limit to the number of special candies you can buy. Why would you plan to buy an unlimited supply of special candies? I'm on level 295 and I haven't spent a brass farthing.

    It's meaningless information. The much better information is the reviews. That's how you know Candy Crush is good value for money and iOS Dungeon Keeper isn't.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 22/07/2014

    @grassyknoll

    Personally, it should say if it contains in app purchases & how much it would cost to buy all the content if it does.
    That makes about as much sense as a supermarket having a sign on the window telling you how much it costs to buy everything in the store.

    It has absolutely no bearing on how much my shopping will cost. Instead it tells me how big the supermarket is.
    Reply 0
  • Battlefield 4: Dragon's Teeth review

  • PlugMonkey 18/07/2014

    A song of fire and DICE.
    A song of DICE and fire, shurely?
    Reply +4
  • Horrifying Catdog-like wrestling game Push Me, Pull You reveals gameplay

  • PlugMonkey 18/07/2014

    Not really sure why everyone describes this as horrifying. It looks cute, silly and very very fun. Reply +5
  • Ex-Panama dictator suing Activision over likeness in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

  • PlugMonkey 16/07/2014

    @houldendub

    I thought if it was satirical (which your pitch sounds) then it would be fine.

    Otherwise why don't all the football games just include the names and likenesses of all the football players, only with your disclaimer on it? Have a fictitious Lionel Messi who plays for a fictitious FC Barcelona and it's all all right because you unconvincingly claim that it's just a coincidence?

    My guess is it's because that's not fine, and if you're planning on using the fictitious defence you have to include some small nods towards it, like maybe not using their actual names and faces.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 16/07/2014

    @houldendub

    Black Cops 2, however, is a fictitious piece of entertainment, with statement claiming that all likenesses are simply coincidences.
    They coincidentally have a character who looks like Manuel Noriega and is called Manuel Noriega and is a Panamanian dictator, like Manuel Noriega.

    That's one heck of a coincidence.
    Reply +12
  • David Braben explains Elite: Dangerous £100 premium beta

  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @INSERT-COIN

    Pretty much. Once the C64 came out, the only reason you would have a BBC is if your parents thought it was 'more educational', or in other words you were massively un-cool. Still, we got Elite first. :P

    That shooter is tickling the vaguest of vague memories, but I can't put my finger on it.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @INSERT-COIN

    The beeb was £335. It was pretty much saved by the school link, as the C64 came along a year later and was a much better machine for not much more.

    The BBC was very much the un-cool kids computer (for un-cool kids like me).

    Apparently Spectrum owners are stilled riddled with envy though. That's good to know. ;)
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @FladgeMangle

    Before long, if he gets his way - which by the trending on this tread he already has - all games will be Breitlings.
    You mean like how there's only Breitling watches? I mean, Breitling charge two and a half grand for their watches, so why don't Swatch?

    It's the same system! A spectrum of products tailored to the market's demands. If Elite is too overpriced for you, wait for a No Man's Sky to come along.

    A No Man's Sky will always come along. Why? There's a market for it.

    BTW, you can only drop the mike when you win...
    Reply +6
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @FladgeMangle

    Is every watch precisely the same as any other apart from the name? My mate can do about 2 hours on why Breitling are superior to all other brands. I can't see it myself, but then I'm not much of a fan of CoD either.

    I'm slightly flummoxed as to how you possibly think video games is a closed system with a limited number of products. There is no limit on the number of studios that can open, or the number of games they produce, other than what the market will accommodate.

    If you want an FPS and don't want to pay the CoD premium, there are scores of other ones to choose from. Choose one of those instead. I do.
    Reply +5
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @FladgeMangle

    You want a watch, buy a watch. You want a Brietling, you pay the market value of a Brietling.

    You want an FPS, buy an FPS. You want Call of Duty...
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @scoop

    Wait, aren't I agreeing with you? I was about to reply to you post to FladgeMangle saying I agreed with you.

    Now I'm confused. If engaging hurts so much, feel free to disengage. ;)
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @FladgeMangle

    The VALUE of a product is be determined by it's WORTH.
    No, value and worth and synonyms, and they're both determined by whatever the market is willing to pay for them. If you make them cost more than the value (or worth) the market attributes to them, they won't sell and you'll have to lower your price,

    That's how a free market works.

    I think Breitling watches are overpriced. A friend of mine has three of them. Is that exploitation? Hardly. It's his money, and he likes them.

    I had half an idea to go and watch the WWE wrestling for a giggle. Then I found out the tickets were 70 quid a pop. How dare they? I don't think men in pants pretending to fight is worth 70 quid!

    Well, it'll sell out at 70 quid a pop to people who like wrestling a lot more than me, so selling them for a fiver just so I can go would be a bit daft...

    Do you rage against all of these things?
    Reply +5
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @FladgeMangle

    You're the one not seeing the bigger picture. The value of a thing is precisely what people are willing to pay for it.

    Protest all you want, but if people are willing to pay a hundred quid, then that is its value.

    They are doing so freely and happily and under no duress. It's no different from the thousands of other products I personally think are too expensive, but hosts of other happy customers don't.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @felicitous_blue

    I was going to say the same thing. Seats at the front cost more than seats at the back. I didn't want to pay the premium for better access, so I just backed it for a copy of the finished game.

    I'll still get that.
    Reply +2
  • Tony Hawk studio Neversoft bids farewell, burns eyeball effigy

  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @Triggerhappytel

    I don't think they've been made redundant, just...rebranded.

    Still, RIP Neversoft. We hardly knew ye.
    Reply +1
  • "It's not historically accurate!"

  • PlugMonkey 11/07/2014

    @ChirpFlare

    Now, for some reason Tom (and presumably you?) think this game is sexist,
    No. I don't think that. I said as much in my last post. That is the whole point.

    If one man becomes an MP, that's not sexist. If all the MPs are men, then that looks less good - but it's an institutional problem. That individual male MP hasn't miraculously become sexist.

    (Tom doesn't even mention Ryze in his article.)

    And that is the crux of it - escapism. You want females (and presumably males?) represented more realistically in video games? (I wont go into the obvious contradiction this article poses, with its "stuff accuracy" approach)
    Again, no. I don't know where you got that. I think it would be nice if women were represented more. I never said anything about more realistically.

    The point of Tom's article is that when you are going for realism, if you scratch the surface you will find women at any point in history. They have been there all along, after all. And if you're just going for escapist fantasy, then the realism excuse becomes even more flimsy.

    There are fundamental misconceptions at the core of your argument. That's why when you amplify it for satirical effect, all you really do is amplify the misconceptions.

    Tom's tone is unfortunate. I've said already I think he's addressing the trolls too much, and in doing so he's getting other people's backs up too. I'll be interested to see where he takes this tomorrow, if he doesn't park it for a while. I think if EG want to keep exploring the subject, it might be good to hear someone else's voice on it.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 10/07/2014

    @ChirpFlare

    How about a tongue in cheek comment, attempting to satirize the actual overreaction here.
    I know what you were attempting to do. Iíve seen plenty of others attempt the same satire and I donít think itís very satirical. Sorry. I think itís dumb hyperbole. No-one is being asked to do anything extreme at all, so how is taking it to a ridiculous extreme satire?

    I apologised in advance for picking on you, and Iíll apologise again now. Iím sorry to pick on you personally when I know you were knocking the tone of the editorial more than anything, but I still think itís a crappy response to being asked to do not very much at all about a big issue - even if your tongue is in your cheek.

    Acknowledge what exists exactly?
    The societal gender imbalance. You really donít think thereís a societal gender imbalance? o_O

    Game writers should insert females into scenarios they write about, for the sake of having more females in the stories - regardless of whether or not it makes the story less believable.
    No. Game writers should not exclude female characters and then use historical accuracy as a catch-all excuse.

    Why is a story about a man inherently sexist?
    Itís not. Thatís the whole point. A story about a man isn't sexist, but every story being about a man is. Right now in video games weíre at, what? 90/10?

    Is tomb raider sexist because you cannot play as a man, and almost everyone she kills is a man?
    No. See above.

    Why do you think sexism is only a one way street?
    I donít, but I do see more traffic moving in one direction than the other. You donít? Why does it always have to be binary? Either 0% or 100%? A one way street, or it doesn't exist? Why canít it be 70/30 and us still want to get to 50/50?

    As I said, the whole point Tom is making is asinine.
    I think Tom is making a good point badly. I think you were making a bad point terribly.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 09/07/2014

    @benderbrodriguez

    Apologies for the long post, I donít have time to write a short one.

    I was responding to you boiling the controversy surrounding Barbie down to physical appearance alone, and then using that to suggest that He-Man was just as bad. Now youíre boiling it down again to education and career choices re: technical subjects, which still isn't the whole controversy surrounding Barbie as a role model. But anyhoo, Iím happy to change the subject. I like this one much better.

    That video suggests there are biological factors to interest and aptitude in certain areas. I never said there werenít. (Quite the opposite in fact. If you had no life, you could sift through 3.5k posts and find where I said it.) What it most definitely does not say, however, is that there are no additional environmental factors.

    As you probably know, what you're looking at there is the nature/nurture debate, or one side of it at least. Nature argues for genes, nurture argues for environment, in the friction in between great strides are made in our overall understanding of both, but the debate itself remains a stalemate.

    You know why? Because in every field of psychology that I've studied (Including this one. I have a 'diploma') the true answer is it's a combination of the two. We are partly the product of our genes, and partly the product of our environment. That's no good as an academic stance though. If you want to do this professionally, you have to pick a side. No great strides are made when everyone meets in the middle. As Lorentzen says:

    ďMy hypothesis is that there are none. Then I must work from that level.Ē
    Thatís just how the system works. That is science being done right. You canít test a hypothesis of ďitís probably a bit of bothĒ. Itís like the legal system Ė you canít have the prosecution presenting evidence for the defence. The prosecutionís job is to debunk the defenceís evidence as best they can, no matter how compelling it might be, or the system breaks down. It would, however, have been quite nice to see some of his evidence tooÖ

    All that video really shows me is that even in the most gender equal country in the world, things aren't particularly equal. I could have told you that. People still think construction work isnít for girls because itís dirty. I missed the part where Prof Baron-Cohen proved girls have a genetic disposition to be clean.

    Equal opportunities means exactly that Ė opportunities are equal. It doesn't mean equal distribution. It's never meant equal distribution. Suppose I believe more boys are predisposed to engineering than girls, which I do. Does that mean I also have to believe that the current 90/10 split found in Norway is the correct, environmentally neutral balance? Not really. Weíre also told that women are more naturally predisposed to ďareas of co-operative exchangeĒ, so what the heck is going on here?!

    Thatís not down to genetics. According to the video I just watched it should be the exact reverse, so thatís when I start looking at things like which gender are given toys that emphasise beauty, and which are given toys that emphasise power. Or, to bring the debate back round to media and video games, which gender are constantly represented as having roles of great importance, and which are represented as having little or no importance at all.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 08/07/2014

    @ChirpFlare

    Sorry to pick on you personally, as Iíd hope you likely have more of an issue with Tomís tone than anything else, but this:

    1.) All world war 2 documentaries should be altered via CGI to have Womens heads put on 50% of the soldiers. In it's current state, the world war 2 footage is extremely sexist.

    2.) The male geniuses throughout history; Newton, Galileo, Edison, Bell, Einstein, Kepler, Darwin, Mozart, Pythagoras, etc... Need to have their histories rewritten as woman. Well, 50% of them at least. It is so utterly sexist currently that they are documented as being male.

    3.) All works of literature that are considered "great", but which have male lead characters need to have their status revoked, and re branded as sexist. Here's looking at you Huckleberry Finn, Moby Dick, The great Gatsby, David Copperfield, The lord of the rings etc etc...

    It is time we face facts people. If you create a work of art which portrays the story of a character, if it is a male character you are a vile sexist pig.
    is the response that gets my goat more than anything: the ridiculous, hyperbolic over reaction.

    You're being asked to acknowledge that something exists. Not to tear down the fabric of society and rebuild it in a new image, just to nod and say "Yeah, OK, I see it".

    Then perhaps, if it crops up in your line of work, maybe not use the perpetual historic nature of the gender imbalance that you have just so ably illustrated above as an excuse to perpetuate it further, intentionally or otherwise. Report history accurately, by all means, just donít use it as an excuse. Maybe look at going a little bit broader, digging a little bit deeper.

    Not a lot, truth be told. Not a big ask at all, in the grand scheme.

    But no, instead, you thought to write this response. It's what another seven people also think is a clever response to the issue here: to pantomime what is being asked of you, so you can ridicule and ignore it.

    I find it genuinely depressing. How can anyone, let alone eight people, even think thatís whatís on the table? Small wonder youíre against it! Iím generally in favour of Tomís editorials on this, but if this is the message heís communicating then he needs to stop immediately.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 07/07/2014

    @dirtysteve

    I was responding to the other poster comparing the physical appearance of the two as role models as if that was the be all and end all of what makes Barbie controversial.

    (Whilst leaving aside the fact that aspiring to build lots of muscle mass, while not necessarily healthy, is more healthy than aspiring to be two stone underweight, however you go about achieving it.)
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 07/07/2014

    @dirtysteve

    Yes, dirtysteve. That really strikes to the heart of my point.

    Bonus points for quoting out of context.
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 07/07/2014

    @_tangent

    I think the uncertainty of historical record might at least be a reason not to be a slave to it, especially as the history becomes more speculative, or your take on it becomes more fantastic. That's where it works for me as a complimentary point.

    Citing historical accuracy for something like WWII, where we know pretty precisely who fought where and when, seems to carry more weight to me than if something is set in the dark ages, or on the Spanish Main, or even the Wild West - where you're not so much citing history as continuing whatever speculation Hollywood made up in the 1940s.

    That said, the tone of the discussion is probably a large part of my problem with it. There is a huge difference between "historical accuracy isn't always a blanket justification for the gender of characters" and "historical accuracy is a silly justification for the gender of characters". The latter is an unjustified leap to a general principle from some specific examples. It is divisive.
    I completely agree. I think something closer to the former tone would have been far more effective in carrying the argument.
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 07/07/2014

    @benderbrodriguez

    Seriously? That simple?

    Leaving aside how healthy He-Man's physique would be compared to Barbie's anorexia, you're comparing a character who says "Math class is hard!" and "Will I ever have enough clothes?" to one who literally bellows "I HAVE THE POWER!" and presenting them to be equally controversial negative role models?

    When you do that, it kind of feels like you're missing the point a tad. I don't think you could come up with a better contrast of the sort of message we gave young girls of my generation vs. the one we gave young boys.

    "Party dresses are fun!"
    "I HAVE THE POWER!"
    "What sort of wedding will you have?"
    "I HAVE THE POWER!"

    Yeah. Totes equals...

    Thank heavens for She-Ra. Now we're just saying, hey! Let's have more She-Ra! Less Barbie, more She-Ra. Progress!

    Come on! It's the nineties! :/
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 07/07/2014

    @_tangent

    I figured it was probably a "reading between the lines" sort of thing though.
    It usually is. Projected tone, combined with the mistaken assumption that there are two sides to the argument, and we all have to be on one of them.

    Tom's point here is two fold. Historical accuracy is a poor argument if a game is playing fast and loose with historical accuracy everywhere else, and secondly that history might not be all that accurate anyway.

    I don't really see that as the one premise trampling the other. They're both reasonable points, although I find the evidence that nobody thought to check the gender of burials until now a little dubious. I saw Time Team dig up a female bronze age warrior years ago, and they seemed to twig pretty quickly.

    I don't think he's claiming to have a magical panacea either. Last week's article was largely about there not being one, that things can only change gradually, and that things will only change at all by us acknowledging these issues instead of denying them.

    Last week I also thought he did well by turning the argument on himself. This week, I think he addresses the trolls directly too much. There's no point doing that, it comes across as antagonistic, and they'll still just post crap like this anyway:

    Please, just get help and go forth in search of your missing bollocks.

    Now please.
    That's what he's fighting against, but then people read it as him lumping every single person who disagrees with him for any reason into this group.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 07/07/2014

    @_tangent

    T'weren't my downvote (those guys get my goat too), but I was sitting here thinking a) how were you measuring integrity and b) what made you the arbiter of it. Maybe it was for that?

    I may agree with a lot of Tom's points, I may disagree with a lot of his arguments, but I totally respect him tackling this issue head on, in public and in what is frequently a highly toxic environment.

    Historically, not many people have benefited from voicing unpopular opinions to core gamers. I very much doubt he's doing this just to garner clicks.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 07/07/2014

    @Luz1978

    I've only read the books, so apologies if they've changed it all for the TV show, but this:

    Well women are definetly involved in the story, usually getting their kit off and using their body to get what they want,
    is a pretty accurate description of one character - Cersei Lannister. I don't really see how it could be applied to Daenerys Targaryen, or Caitlyn Stark, or Arya or Sansa, or Asha Greyjoy, or Brienne of Tarth, or Melisandre.

    Is GoT a shining light of non-sexist products? Dunno about that. Doesn't that just make the point that its still something video games can aspire to even more depressing? Name me a series of games with a similarly varied roster of female characters as I've just listed above.

    And that's just one TV show. It's not special for doing this, all TV shows these days are like this. Why? Because of a neo-liberal feminazi conspiracy? Nup. It just makes for better TV shows...
    Reply 0
  • Video: The flattest performances by Hollywood actors in games

  • PlugMonkey 10/07/2014

    @kingdumpalot

    No, he was awesome. As were Christopher Walken and John Hurt.

    Probably the best live action performances in a video game ever.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 10/07/2014

    @Carpetfluff

    The book splits into two concurrent narratives. I'm not sure that really works as well on screen. I can see why they would keep everything that happens in the order than it happens rather than stick to telling one side and then the other.

    I haven't watched the show much, but I would assume they abridge bits here and there too.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 10/07/2014

    @Spuzzell

    Ok, but you get that you're just plain wrong about Blood Dragon though?
    Amen. Blood Dragon was ace, and Biehn was ace in it.
    Reply +4
  • Forget the Get Rich or Die Tryin' approach, Capy boss tells indies

  • PlugMonkey 10/07/2014

    @Sildur

    Where does he suggest being part of the corporate machine?

    Are Hello Games the corporate machine?
    Reply +23
  • Video: Why Superman will never have a good game

  • PlugMonkey 04/07/2014

    @donniebox

    only a pair of glasses and a suit fool anyone
    That's another reason Reeve's take on the character is definitive.

    The disguise doesn't work because of a pair of glasses, it works because it's Clark. You can't possibly think Clark Kent is Superman. The guy can barely fetch coffee. When the thought occurs to Lois that they look alike, the idea just makes her laugh.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 04/07/2014

    You control Lex Luthor.

    Now that would be a Superman game I would play.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 03/07/2014

    As Mike says in the video, the only way to do it would be to transfer the peril onto 3rd parties.

    But that still begs the question: why not just make a game about a hero who can rescue imperilled parties and also be in peril themselves instead?

    I have a theory about the Donner/Reeve movies that they work so well because the 3rd party in peril isn't usually Lois Lane, but Clark Kent - the side of the hero you actually empathise with a root for. Superman is indestructible, but Clark can be utterly destroyed by as little as a careless whisper.

    That could be an interesting angle for a game. A sort of Octodad route.

    Lot's of people pull off a decent Superman, but only Reeve gave me a Clark I cared about. He's really the heart of the character. If I don't care about preserving Clark, I can literally do anything.
    Reply +6
  • Xenonauts review

  • PlugMonkey 03/07/2014

    Even though I view it now through the most generous tint of rose,
    I don't. I still play it every year, and it's bloody brilliant.

    My main concern with this version is that while it's undoubtedly very accurate, it seems to have lost every ounce of the original's charm.
    Reply +3
  • The Bitmap Brothers' 1996 RTS Z hits Steam this week

  • PlugMonkey 03/07/2014

    @midnight_walker

    Except it's not a port, because they've rebuilt it from scratch.

    Nobody would claim that GTA V for PS4 had been built 'from scratch', would they?
    They might do, if it had been...

    What with it not being from 1996 though, I doubt that was necessary, so I would guess they haven't, and therefore I would guess they wouldn't.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 03/07/2014

    @midnight_walker

    Lol. It's really not. That house of yours would fall over. The wiring's all faulty, the pipes will give you lead poisoning and then the mortar will dissolve in all this acid rain.

    If the devs say they've rebuilt it from scratch, I believe them. I see no reason not to.
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 03/07/2014

    @midnight_walker

    If I pull your house down, lay new foundations, and then build your house again, I am building from scratch. The 'scratch' being the nothing that was there before I laid the new foundations.

    Whether or not I use the same reclaimed bricks or new bricks is irrelevant. I'm still building from nothing.

    The point that they're making is that there aren't any compatibility issues because it's all new code. I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. Who are they misleading? I understand exactly what they're telling me.
    Reply +7
  • PlugMonkey 03/07/2014

    @midnight_walker

    If they've rewritten the code base from a blank screen, then that is built from scratch. 'Scratch' being 'nothing', and 'built' being, well, 'built'.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 03/07/2014

    @midnight_walker

    So they've re-built it from scratch for modern PCs.

    So what?
    Reply +3
  • California Dreamin': Dead Island 2 embraces the slaughter

  • PlugMonkey 01/07/2014

    @LadyDownton

    You mean like this Dead State, the already in development zombie game?
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 01/07/2014

    @arcam

    Yeah, me too. I'm kind of done with silly zombie smashing. I'd really like to see more people trying to do the scenario proper justice.

    This approach feels done to death, although Yager's involvement piques my interest a little. Spec Ops: The Line was pretty good when it wasn't taking itself waaaaay too seriously.
    Reply 0
  • BioWare's first "fully gay" male party member in DAI

  • PlugMonkey 01/07/2014

    @DrStrangelove

    I know! You're having a wee chat, just to check where their heads are at, being a good commanding officer and then - woah, WOAH! Eject! Eject!

    We'd hang around with the aliens all the time just because, for ME1 at least, they could be trusted to get through a debriefing without actually debriefing. At ease, Private. No, no. Trousers on.

    I've never had 'relations' with any character in a Bioware game as a result of this. It's like being in an Alien Sex Virus episode of Star Trek.
    Reply +3
  • The sickening side of the Steam summer sale

  • PlugMonkey 28/06/2014

    @drhickman1983

    I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.

    Console manufacturers subsidise the hardware and then get it back by adding a premium to the games.

    Obviously, the fewer games you buy, the more the subsidy benefits you. For someone who only buys a handful of games a year, consoles are always going to be cheaper.

    I buy lots of games, and I don't want to sell my games, so PC gaming is cheaper for me. At best you'd break even, and it's not worth stumping up all the cash up front just to break even. Just get a PS4.
    Reply +2