Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Feigro

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1
Movies / Re: The Dark Knight
« on: July 20, 2008, 09:57:58 am »
Dent "subplot"? Dent's Arc was essentially the focus of the movie.


2
Spore: General / Re: Blatant ripping off.
« on: July 16, 2008, 02:00:32 am »
I can say I understand the other perspective. Which is why my original post was more general and largely spoke of my own opinion on the matter.

In the end, EA is looking into it regardless of any of our opinions. If it gets fixed, huzzah, if not, well shucks. In the event it can't be fixed though, I'd recommend people shift their perspectives a bit solely due to the fact that Spore will begin to cause frustration in one of it's primary functions. Frustration to which there'd be (at that point) no remedy.

Now though, hopes up I guess. Anyway, I can't really continue to debate this issue, nor did I really intend to or care to. So take care.  ;)

3
Spore: General / Re: Blatant ripping off.
« on: July 16, 2008, 01:44:50 am »
Now let's get to the point.
Okay.

1. Once they reupload it, it is no longer yours, it is yours and theirs.

Did you miss the part where I said I don't care? If that's their fun, then that's their fun. I made creatures for people to be entertained. To rephrase my general sentiment, I don't need a pat on the back for it.

2. Point 1 creates a problem, keeping the stats of your creature. It will no longer be one but 2 or whatever many were copied going around, eventually the stats about that species will be completely biased.

Again, only relevent for people who care about that stuff. Even still, god forbid the number on how many times your creature was downloaded/killed/befriended/whatever isn't an accurate number. Now, my first post was speaking generally, and here we're having a personal back and forth now, but my next statement isn't intended to offend you specifically as I know nothing about you nor presume to understand how you function as a person - This kind of mentality only speaks to me as someone who needs that "pat on the back". That kind of person who draws a picture and puts it up not for the entertainment of drawing a picture and spreading "joy" (lack of a better idea), but so they can get the satisfaction of how that picture is recieved. An ego boost, if you will.

Am I little extreme in that belief? Yes. But I don't attribut it to the stats thing really, more so the opposition to stealing and wanting credit for ones crap. The stats thing I view as a different issue and my simple response to that was the previously stated - "Who cares if the number isn't exactly accurate?". With the amount of creatures (millions) that'll one day exist, and the amount of creatures being the exact same (congradulations, you've created the 249th xenomorph), the number of your creatures stats will be significantly low anyway.

I'm gonna break the last point into two parts. First real quickl
3. There is something to gain actually, reputation/popularity.

Again (or perhaps I haven't said it at all yet), this is my personal opinion on this kind of attitude, but I find this way of thinking utterly rediculous. Now, don't take this as a direct insult if that's something your looking to get from Spore. Everyone is 100% entitle to their own things that bring them pleasure. I don't think less of people for this kind of thinking. I just think the idea in itself, independant of who thinks it, is purely a futile investment of ones emotional/mental/whatever interests.

If you want as many creatures to see your creatures and even get them then the best way for that to happen is for them to get featured. Now, imagine someone copies your creature and their upload is featured. They'll be getting more downloads than you, probably people will even get other creatures they have stolen from all over the place and the original creator is left pissed off and with no good way of showing his content to the world..

So let me see if I can sum this up;

Me - I want people to experience and derrive fun from my creatures

Response - Stealers could have my creature featured which gets them downloaded more

So... Why should I be upset with the result? This goes back to my question of whether you understood the idea behind my post. If somebody stole my creature and it got featured (for whatever reason, since it wasn't featured under my title/account)  I'd be thrilled. My creature is now featured.

Does it have my name on it? No. Do I care? No. Why? because I don't need that pat on the back. I'm perfectly content knowing that the second I hit the upload button - thousands of people will find entertainment in something I made. I don't need to be acknowledged for it.

Or perhaps more accurately and less volatile way to phrase it would be that I don't care if people don't know who the creature truly came from. I'll know. It doesn't matter if they know.

4
Spore: General / Re: Blatant ripping off.
« on: July 16, 2008, 01:15:39 am »
Recieving credit to me is absolutely irrelevent.

If somebody swipes a creature of mine it means there's that much more of a chance someone else will get to experience it. So long as my creatures are providing fun and entertainment I'm satisfied. I don't need a pat on the back for it.

Hell, even the process of stealing the creature probably grants satisfaction to someone. Perhaps they suck at creating stuff. So they swipe yours to get a feeling of satisfaction. Hey, if that's what they need to get off in life, then take every single one of my creatures. My self esteem, ego, and confidence is perfectly adaquet without input from other people. Least of all in a community surrounding a video game where interactions will become little more than a Myspace equivalent. Again, I'm creating stuff to provide entertainment to people. If someone gets entertainment from stealing my creature, well, first of all I'm aware of how easy and possible it is once I hit upload, and second, I'd encourage it. If it's how someone enjoys my creature, then great! It doesn't effect me. If anything, it further spreads my creature around to more people to have fun with it, like I already mentioned.

I lose nothing from having things stolen. In my opinion, no one loses anything from having creatures stolen. So I honestly don't see why people bother to care so much.

Also, I just read a few more replies to this thread that I missed and I agree with Azareon, SpecialB, Paroxysm, etc. I'm on that side of the fence.

if it wasn't wrong to do it then Maxis/EA wouldn't be trying to solve it.
This is easily debatable. It's very possible their response to these kinds of issues is entirely dependant on Community response.

Scenario one; No one complains about creature stealing. EA Maxis doesn't bother with creature stealing.
Scenario two; No one complains about creature stealing. EA Maxis tries to solve creature stealing.
Scenario three; People complain about creature stealing. EA Maxis tries to solve creature stealing.
Scenario four; People complain about creature stealing. EA Maxis doesn't bother with creature stealing.

Since we've heard they're thinking about the issue, then naturally it's either scenarios two or three taking place. So don't claim some kind of idealogy exists when you have no perspective on the situation short of being someone on the internet. Maxis' intentions for solving the issue could be entirely dependant on community response and have nothing at all to do with internal philosophy.



5
Spore: General / Re: An Open Plea to the Maxis Team
« on: July 02, 2008, 10:12:55 am »
So you agree that this ability can affect other players, and require action on their part to deal with it. :)  I was just saying that it could, not that it was severe.

No. I agree that every single creature will affect other players and will require action on their part to deal with. This bug is no different than anything else that can be made.

If somebody doesn't want pink creatures in their world, they'll actively have to police it. This is true for bunnies. This is true for dinosaurs. This is true for creatures with "crap" animations. For "stupid" creatures. For Pokemon. For Nauceans.

Someone who doesn't want invisible bugged creatures will have a lot easier of a time getting rid of them than someone who doesn't want pokemon. I'd be willing to bet there are more people in the planet that wouldn't want pokemon than these creatures as well.

Quote
Of course it's cool you can make a unique and weird creature. However, many people would be a bit put off if amongst the four-legged herbivores on their home world there suddenly appeared a transdimensional monster. There's no easy way to deal with this...the only thing I can think of is to keep the creature off-line out of courtesy

This is rediculous. Keep the creature off line out of courtesy? To whom? To what? Not everybody shares the same opinions on anything. One person could walk over a hill and see this creature and think, "Coool" and continue their merry game experience. Another could walk over a hill and see it and think, "Dammit. that's so lame" .

So someone should keep it offline because some 2-5 people (I didn't count) in a random thread on an internet forum think it's lame?

I would argue people should keep pokemon off line out of courtesy.
People should keep bunnies off line out of courtesy.
Dragons should be kept offline out of courtesy.
Crabs should be kept offline out of courtesy.
Ponies and unicorns should be kept offline out of courtesy.

Courtesy of whom? The people who don't want to see that crap.

Which is why the players have 100% control over what stays in their game. Don't like it? Get rid of it. Banning it from the rest of the world because you think it's crap is utterly rediculous and the same argument could be presented about damn near every single creature that sits on the sporepedia right now.


6
Spore: General / Re: Spore on Kotaku
« on: July 01, 2008, 01:44:15 pm »
But the UFO is the vehicles editor, and transitional is hardly its own editor...

Not to a random fan watching a demo.

7
Spore: General / Re: An Open Plea to the Maxis Team
« on: June 30, 2008, 06:11:23 am »
You're assuming they don't end up on sporepedia or get automatically streamed into people's games.

So does that mean you're assuming people don't have 100% control of what stays in their game?

If you don't like something, get rid of it. Woe to ye who has to click a button now and again. These things would be no more frequent than everything else, and everyone is going to get content in their game that they don't want which will lead to the active "policing" of their galaxy. This bug's existence would add neglegable weight to that.


8
Spore: General / Re: Video from San Fransisco 6/21/08
« on: June 28, 2008, 03:47:46 pm »
Ok?

Anyway, awesome vid but could you atleast give some commentary about what the last part that you didn't film was about?

That's in this thread.

I'll point you to this post, since it's mine (and thus easier to find), the rest of the thread is all yours.

9
Spore: General / Re: I want to play the original Spore.
« on: June 28, 2008, 06:34:53 am »
You doubt they'll release expansions/updates that will improve that? I don't. Not that I care, I'm happy with what we have now.

No. I'm doubting they reached a point of quality and then intentionally scaled it back so they could put a patch or update on reserve. For example, take all of the clipping issues with the CC. If they reached a point in development where all of that is removed, I highly doubt they'd not release the game at that quality solely so they could release a patch or expansion with those fixes as a feature.

Will they improve things for the future? Sure. Have they already done so and just decided to remove those improvements on the basic fabrics of the game? I highly doubt it.

But, you'll have your opinion anyway. So further debating the issue is absolutely irrelevent.

Sorry, DarkDragon, but I'm going to have to take issue with your last two corrections. "Terrain editor" was never mentioned other than the UFO, which is still in. There was a talk about the development of Spore that included a developer tool for designing planet types, but it was never claimed to be an editor that we would get our hands on, and so does not count as something being "taken out."

As for the hut editor, that was something hinted at, not something promised. The way I see it, they replaced the hut editor in tribal with the armor editor. I don't count that as being taken out since, way back when Spore was fresh and new, I had my doubts about that ever being in there at all. People back then had a tendency to assume, which leads to today's "Spore has been dumbed down this is terrible!" type posts.

This video displays both a "terrain editor" and "hut editor" in the first 20 seconds. Meaning they were either planned, being designed, implemented, and in any case of those options, eventually removed or transformed (U.F.O. counts as terrain editor, imo).

You're technically right, though. The Spore team never touted Terrain or Hut editors as features, per se. This simply goes along with what I've been saying about people having the ability to follow a game through out it's development. Ultimately people will be dissapointed because Development is about trimming things down to what you need to make the game. Not packing in as many features as humanly possible.

Games start huge, and ship at about 20-40% of what was imagined. It has nothing to do with evil corporations or bad planning either. In nearly every presentation Will gives, he usually talks about that sort of thing. How they take the "best 10%" of something or "the best 3rd or 4th". It's simply an aspect of design and development.

There's a quote that pretty much sums it all up, really; "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away" - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

Will once cited a japanese(?) proverb that pretty much says the exact same thing. Though I can't remember it at the moment.


10
Spore: General / Re: Featured Creatures - Enough Already!
« on: June 27, 2008, 02:28:58 pm »
The issue is that there's no game to go along with the CC...

On an entirely unrelated note I use this to rationalize the Freds and Sarahs of the sporepedia. I mean, some people may just want to name their creatures that sort of thing. Which is fine of course. But I can't help but wonder if some people simply don't realize they're designing a species of creatures as opposed to a single entity, like a making your own teddy bear or toy and naming it Oswald.

Anyway, excuse the tangent. I don't pay attention to the featured stuff at all. The most attention the sporepedia really gets from me involves me sifting through the first couple of pages  now and again.


11
Spore: General / Re: Read the oldest topics while waiting for Spore
« on: June 27, 2008, 09:54:17 am »
Well he's right in a sense. Will Didn't promise anything and the video is a rough idea. Something to consider is that it's not as if you could argue the video and coverage was even intended. It popped up on a handful of sites and pretty much no one had any clue what was going on really. It looked awesome, it sounded awesome, so the buzz (and along with it, the hype) spread.

It's why Gamingsteve grew such a large spore community for pete's sake. He was pretty much the only guy keeping tabs on it.

There was no further video footage released publicly for over a year. Not to mention a virtual news blackout. I wouldn't be surprised if Will, or probably more accurately, Spore's marketing team, could change one thing about the history of Spore's media cycle it would be the appearance of the GDC 05 video on the internet. As it provokes the exact kind of reaction you're displaying when people see stuff that's it's early infancy of development.

So again, it's not as if they showed you something and then took it away, or purposelly changed it simply to spite you. The game was in the early stages of development. The demo was a protype at best. It was "held together with Duct-tape".

Though I honestly don't see how you could believe this;

Quote
and i must say spore as it is now(the actual game that is) seems to have strayed away from the concept of what he showed us then in 05'

The "concept" hasn't changed at all.

12
Spore: General / Re: I want to play the original Spore.
« on: June 27, 2008, 09:32:35 am »
All of those are primarily content expansions that add on additional stuff that the Sims could easily exist without. The Sims was designed to be expandable. It didn't matter if if the game started with 8 jobs or if it started with 20. The Maxis team would still be able to add more. This continues through out the rest of the game. It doesn't matter if you had a selection of 10 bathtubs or 15, Maxis could always add 5 more.

Things like Hot Date and Holiday are pretty full expansions packs that took their own amount of design time (as did the other ones, but I view some of the expacs as simply adding "more stuff" like furniture and jobs). What you fail to realize is that the development time would've expanded had these features been in the initial game. The Sims was not "half unfinished". It is a fine stand alone product to the effect of which I personally never purchased an Expansion for myself and was still fully capable of enjoying it for the money I spent. Which is all that matters in a product.

The animations and inner-workings of the game were fine that did not require additional expansions to flesh them out (though patches, sure). Which is what I was discussing in relation to the post I was referring to. His gripe was that "hey... these animations look better than the ones we have now! stupid!!!" so your honest theory is that EA told them to dumb down the animations and the basic (mechanic) fabrics of the game, So they can release an expansion later that touts "Now with less choppy animations! and better pathfinding too!". That, I find ridiculous.

Something like the underwater stage is subject to the "save it for an expansion" mentality though. But consider this - All of the expansion packs for the sims had their own amount of development times. Without being able to account for pauses in the development cycles, You're argument of "EA should release the finished game to us" translates into the Sims being released in 2003 instead of 2000. Additionally, it'd likely be marked at a higher price.

Finally, EA are evil overlords. Sure, there you go. But they also employ the people that are making spore. Which is a game I want that is made by people I respect. Considering they like their jobs, and 30 dollars is pretty trivial to me in the grand scheme of things, I'm perfectly fine with shelling out for a few feature-packed expansions every year or so as I expect the game of Spore to entertain me for quite some time.

To Illustrate an example, I have a game I purchased in 1996 for 30 dollars that I still play today. That's 30 dollars that has bought me over 10 years of entertainment (obviously compressed into actual game time) The folks who made that game only got 30 bucks, where in my opinion, they technically deserve more. So If a company has found a formula to provide further service to their customers who remain playing their product for several years, while simultaneously continue to reap their deserved profit from it, then go nuts. So long as the initial product remains a quality product, then what's the blody problem?

The Sims vanilla (sans expansions) remained a quality product. Spore also appears to be a quality product.

(tangent) Civilization 4 vanilla is a quality product. Yet it's two expansions provide an insane amount of content that in some aspects completely flesh out the game entirely and brings it to whole new levels. Does that mean Firaxis and 2k are evil and are robbing you? No. It means they shipped you a good product that you purchased, then used that product as a platform to offer you additional products which you may or may not choose to buy.

Don't want to feed the evil overlords? Don't buy expansions. There is nothing about Spore to suggest it isn't going to be a complete A+ quality product. If it isn't, then you don't need to worry about expansions. If it is, then you got what you paid for and can choose to further your purchases or not.

But to suggest that the Sims was an incomplete game is rediculous. They could always expand it and they could've continued to do so if they wanted to. The content you can find in the online community is a testament to that fact in itself.

And DD I know you're spore fan anyway, so In the end I guess this post isn't really directed at you so much as "everybody else". You just provided the catalyst for the response.

13
Spore: General / Re: I want to play the original Spore.
« on: June 27, 2008, 08:10:10 am »
You know. There's a video right here that deals explicitly with the art direction issue;

One(around 8:00) and Two

You may choose to believe EA stomped it's foot and said "make it cute." if you want. But that's not a marketing Q/A. So it's not like they're there to cough up an answer to something with their evil EA overlords watching them behind tinted glass.

It was a design decision based off of the information presented in those videos. A Design decision EA likely had nothing to do with.


As to the other stuff the OP mentioned in the thread that got merged with this one. Yes, I'm sure EA said, "Don't make the animations as fluid as the tech demo, we wouldn't want that". As far as sticking to a schedule, EA or not, the game needs to be released or else Maxis continues to lose money. Wright has mentioned many times while discussing the design process that it's not about getting all of the awesome ideas into a game. It's about selecting what good 10% of the ideas you have that you're actually going to focus on so you can fit them in.

Elsewise the game would probably never get finished.

14
Spore: General / Re: I want to play the original Spore.
« on: June 27, 2008, 06:08:21 am »
The aimed for Jupiter and landed on Mars. Either way they ended up where no one else has been before, and have a damn good game on their hands, in my opinion.

Here's something that most of the people who whine about certain things in spore should think about - Ever think Maxis is dissapointed with a few things too?

I doubt the animators are cackling with glee that you can't recreate dilema.
I doubt the artists and textureers are keen on the fact they couldn't pull the spectrum of "Pixar to Giger" off in it's entirety (though this seems pretty giger to me, plus we've yet to see the breadth of buildings, vehicles, and planets).
I doubt they were jumping in hysterics at the decision to cut the water stage.


15
Spore: General / Re: Definitive limit of Creatures per Planet?
« on: June 27, 2008, 05:18:19 am »
Wait, is that 2007 video the latest thing we have about the boxes?

I mean, that was a year ago... the game has already changed a lot since then.

The screenshots in this thread are dated Feb. 13th of 08 and they contain the same UI. Considering the game has been "pretty muched finished" since mid 07 anyway. It's concrete.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37