PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
So Good... We Dropped It
May 3rd 2000, 16:16 CEST by andy

Looking forward to the next game in the Ultima series? Well, you can look forward to a bit less of it now.



I've never played any of the Ultima games or their online versions, and I don't follow any of their communities at all, but I know there have been a lot of people getting very annoyed over the last year about missing features, poor support, bugs and a general suckyness of attitude from developer Origin.

Although I don't care much for the series, I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow at an announcement on the Ultima Online site, revealing that certain important features will be missing from the forthcoming sequel...

We're excited about UO2 and we want to share our work with everyone. But there are drawbacks to sharing plans early, especially when those plans change. For the time being, we're going to remove player housing, mounts, the Quest of the Avatar, and the in-game guild system from our FAQ.

Fair enough, I suppose, at least they're letting people know, and I trust they'll issue some sort of official press release so magazines that have done previews can update their readers accordingly. (They will, won't they?)

Where the announcement gets a little funny is in the attempts made to justify the decision. Whether or not the decision actually needs justifying is a matter of opinion - personally I think it doesn't - but have a look at this...

These are features that we feel are extremely important. So important, in fact, that we're not going to rush them.

Surely that should read, so important that we're not going to include them in the game? Maybe they'll add them later, but as it stands they're going to take out "extremely important" features and ship the game anyway. They're shipping a cut-down version. Presumably at a cut-down price?

It takes a serious amount of time to implement, polish, balance, and bug-proof these large features - so much time that I cannot personally guarantee that these features will make the game's initial release.

The last two words of that sentence say so much about the current mindset of the industry. Let's be clear on this: Games do not have an "initial release". They have a release. Developers can add, update and change as much as they want over the whole of the game's lifetime, but they only release it once.

Depending on your perspective, you could take this announcement as a signal of openness and integrity, or if you're of a more cynical persuasion you could take it as a warning. After all, if something's going on behind the scenes that is causing "extremely important" features to be stripped out, what are the chances that a few corners are also being cut on quality control?

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: So Good... We Dropped It

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Desiato"
2000-05-03 16:22:20
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com
Hmm...so Origin is actually coming forward and saying "Hey it's incomplete, but please buy it.." That's a change. Usually left out features aren't even discussed, unless they are added by a later patch.

However - if this leads to a "broken-shipping" strategy, then that is where I'll get mad.

Here's version "Pre *this feature*" but for an additional $30 bucks, you can get the "FULL feature version"...nice segmentation. If anyone actually falls for it.

Brazen honesty or evil marketing scheme? You decide...

Desiato..
#2 by "Whisp"
2000-05-03 16:27:45
whisp@vt.edu
I figure most of you have seen this already, but just in case you haven't, here goes.
<QUOTE>
"We’re excited and enthused about the upcoming publish of Ultima Online: Renaissance and we sincerely hope you’ll enjoy all the great systems and updates we’ve bundled together in this new package. However, the changes and features included in Ultima Online: Renaissance are some of the most complex and elaborate changes we’ve published since the game was released, and because of this, we’ve decided to delay the publish of Ultima Online: Renaissance until we are secure in delivering a quality gaming experience to our customers.

Additionally, in the interest of providing a smooth and expedient publish, we have chosen to remove the faction system from the Renaissance publish. This system will be brought back into testing following the next publish. We expect it to be active on the shards within a few weeks of the Renaissance publish.

While we can delay the release of Ultima Online: Renaissance to our servers, we cannot delay the retail release, and thus you may see the new UO: Renaissance box on the shelves of your neighborhood software store now. For our new players, we hope this very short delay will provide ample time to experience and explore the world of Britannia before you settle in to enjoy all that Renaissance has to offer."</QUOTE>

See it <a href="http://www.uo.com/news.html">here</a> for yourself.

Does anyone else sense a trend here?

-Whisp
#3 by "Jafd"
2000-05-03 16:30:22
jNOaSPAMfPLEASEd@zombieworld.NOSPAMPLEASE.com http://www.hereticii.com/skull/
bril shitrod
#4 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-03 16:30:49
ryan__greene@hotmail.com
Well, I held off on buying Half Life until I could get it with Team Fortress included (Game of the Year Edition) here in the States. I would do the same with any other game that wants me to d/l things that should have been included in the first place.

Sadly, this includes Deus Ex, which is looking killer, until they release a multiplayer verion on CD.

I <u>hate</u> having to d/l large patches, esp. with the carppy connection I have at the moment. Furhter,if I have to re-install, I don't want to ahve to go nuts looking for the back up of the patches.
#5 by "Andy"
2000-05-03 16:31:32
andy@planetcrap.com
Damn, I wish I hadn't put that bit in about magazines. Oh well.
#6 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-03 16:33:46
ryan__greene@hotmail.com
Lastly, I hate my lousy spelling skills.
#7 by "DevPac2"
2000-05-03 16:34:44
devpac2@hotmail.com
I'm pretty certain that UO2's release date is a good way off (end 2001?) so speculation about whats going to go into the release version is a little premature but its interesting that they're talking about an 'initial release' even at this stage. Without these four features what, apart from the move to 3d, is going to differentiate it from the original UO ?

This reminds me a little of Q3, and what people have been saying about that. Some people have said that it doesn't offer a lot of new stuff except a funky new engine and much of the additional content arrives at a later date.

Dev
#8 by "Andy"
2000-05-03 16:37:41
andy@planetcrap.com
Whisp - for someone who has pretty much zero knowledge of the Ultima series, can you fill me (and others?) in on what that quote is about?

The best I could figure out was that they're shipping the game to retail, but the servers aren't going to be ready in time for the release. Is that what it means?
#9 by "Whisp"
2000-05-03 16:38:31
whisp@vt.edu
<b>#5</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>I wish I hadn't put that bit in about magazines. Oh well. </QUOTE>

Why is that?  Did I miss something?

-Whisp
#10 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-03 16:40:58
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
"Surely that should read, so important that we're not going to include them in the game? Maybe they'll add them later, but as it stands they're going to take out "extremely important" features and ship the game anyway. They're shipping a cut-down version. Presumably at a cut-down price?"

Perhaps it should read "We think that it is so importantn that we are not going to include it in the early versions on the odd shot that we might tank it the first time around"

<b>#2</b> "Whisp" wrote...
<QUOTE>While we can delay the release of Ultima Online: Renaissance to our servers, we cannot delay the retail release, and thus you may see the new UO: Renaissance box on the shelves of your neighborhood software store now. For our new players, we hope this very short delay will provide ample time to experience and explore the world of Britannia before you settle in to enjoy all that Renaissance has to offer."</QUOTE>

Isn't this the same problem that Manikind had?? Went to market in an alpha state because they would not push back the retail date?

And I wonder how much of this is hedging against a Daikatana-type development cycle. What they are in effect saying is "We know that it is not finished, and parts don't work. But we do not want to miss our retail date, so we are shipping what we have and godspeed to those that buy it."

Does not bode well, I think. We appear to be going from patch-ware to promise-ware. What happens if UO2 tanks badly, and they decide it isn't worth it to them to finish it.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-03 16:44:46
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
And just how are they going to get this thing to sell if it gets to market, and half of the proprietary features (not the right word, but you get my point) such as Quest of the Avatar, player home building, don't make it into the first release?
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#12 by "Karl Palutke"
2000-05-03 16:57:38
palutkek@asme.org
<quote>I'm pretty certain that UO2's release date is a good way off (end 2001?)</quote> [snip]

Well, it's good that they're waffling on the features early . . . I hate it when they put it off until the last minute.
#13 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-03 16:58:29
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
"Fair enough, I suppose, at least they're letting people know, and I trust they'll issue some sort of official press release so magazines that have done previews can update their readers accordingly."

"Damn, I wish I hadn't put that bit in about magazines. Oh well."

In that case I'll let it slide..... :)

I don't see this as much of an issue.  It's an MMRPG...their going to constantly add to it...they're just telling you which of the originally planned features aren't going to make it into the "initial release".  Would anyone be complaining if they never knew those features were going to be included??  What if they were released as a surprise bonus in an upgrade later?  Wouldn't people then be applauding Origin for providing such great additional content??  This is a simple matter of (mis)perception.

Frankly, I don't see where anyone has a reason to complain about someone telling you the truth about a product - REGARDLESS of their possible motives.

"Initial release" doesn't have to be viewed as a bad thing.  In a MMRPG they are constantly adding content.  Using "initial relase" to describe the packaged version, under those conditions, doesn't strike me as odd.

More and more games are seeing multiple updates, and some are seeing multiple releases.  Thief/Thief gold for example - I doubt anyone could really claim the first was incomplete, despite the "missing" features/maps that were released in Theif gold.

-Valeyard
#14 by "Karl Palutke"
2000-05-03 16:59:00
palutkek@asme.org
For their next Ultima game, the announcement that some features won't be included in the 'initial release' will be appended to the press release announcing the game.
#15 by "Whisp"
2000-05-03 17:02:43
whisp@vt.edu
I haven't been interested very much in UO since the beta test.  It was just too painful for me to use, and that killed any interest I had in it.  Part of the problem of course, was that I was an AOL'er at the time and my connection was shit, but I didn't know that then.  I first saw this particular post on Old Man Murray's

I think UO:Renaissance is an update to the original UO, unlike UO2 which is supposed to be something new.  

I read that announcement the same way you did.  It sure sounds like they said they were going to be ready on a certain date, and then they weren't, but had to ship the game anyway because of all the bs that goes on with retailers and buying space.  I'm not sure if you should just blame Origin for this one, but they definitely played a large part in whatever went wrong.  I'm not sure how exactly buyers are supposed to "experience and explore the world of Britannia" without any servers to do it on, but maybe the software allows you access to the original UO servers, just minus the new stuff.

-Whisp
#16 by "Whisp"
2000-05-03 17:10:31
whisp@vt.edu
<b>#13</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>I don't see this as much of an issue. It's an MMRPG...their going to constantly add to it...they're just telling you which of the originally planned features aren't going to make it into the "initial release". Would anyone be complaining if they never knew those features were going to be included?? What if they were released as a surprise bonus in an upgrade later? Wouldn't people then be applauding Origin for providing such great additional content?? This is a simple matter of (mis)perception. </QUOTE>

I think you're right that no one would be complaining if those particular features had never been announced.  The problem in this case is that Origin HAD announced that these features would appear.

<QUOTE>For the time being, we're going to remove player housing, mounts, the Quest of the Avatar, and the in-game guild system <u>from our FAQ</u>.</QUOTE>
This says to me that these features were on the FAQ, therefore had been announced.  No misperception here.  These features were in, now they aren't (maybe).

This whole matter definitely highlights the difficulties you can create for yourself when you start hyping the content of a new game too far in advance.  If something happens or changes, it makes you look bad and players feel like they have been cheated - even if whatever changes actually ends up improving the game.

-Whisp
#17 by "David Long"
2000-05-03 17:14:06
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
The UO: Renaissance release amounted to a budget repackaging of the original game. The new content was on the CD, but that letter you see above in this thread came out the day it hit the shelves. Users who bought UO:R were unable to use the new content at all. It was basically Ultima Online in a new box advertised to be an expansion of the original game. It's a mess and it's typical of Origin's recent troubles.

They let the game be shipped to stores and then said, "Whoops!  This doesn't work right yet.  Ahhhh... just sell it anyway. We'll disable all the stuff they're paying for and tell them we're working on it."

That whole fiasco is a joke and worthy of an entire thread unto itself.  This UO2 thing isn't that big a deal since the game isn't out yet and won't be for awhile. They are ripping out features for UO2 that they've had in UO for awhile though. Plus they're taking away some new ones that have been long awaited.

When it comes right down to it, a lot of what they want to do there (housing in particular) is tough as nails in a 3D world. They're probably right to not even try. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#18 by "Andy"
2000-05-03 17:23:46
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#9</b>, Whisp:
<QUOTE><QUOTE>
#5 "Andy" wrote...
I wish I hadn't put that bit in about magazines. Oh well.
</QUOTE>
Why is that? Did I miss something?
</QUOTE>
Well most people who will be interested in UO2 probably have net connections and will follow the Ultima community stuff, so magazines aren't really part of the equation.

I just think it's bad when companies announce a game's features, let magazines run previews that mention those features, and then they put a little message on their web site saying oops, changed our minds. But with UO2 that doesn't really apply.
#19 by "Houston"
2000-05-03 17:34:30
breynolds@us.infogrames.com http://www.www.www.www
Keeping developers in jobs costs money

Game publishers have to make money in order to pay developers

Development cycles often have to be timed in order to make the system run properly, or else paychecks get bounced.. I've seen it before, and it ain't pretty.

So, this in-turn leads to feature drop, so the game the devs. were so excited about 2 years ago when it was just a document has had to change to accomodate payroll/expenditures.

wh00pee

With a game like Ultima Online, the developers, because of the existing online world needing maintenace, get to keep their jobs as long as the account money keeps rolling in.  Therefore, they can still develop the game (and auto-patch to users) for as long as they're getting paid.  So, you can ship with at least the basic engine, add to it, and still be a-o'tay.  Long as there's no "A" crash bugs.

People bitch about the game dropping features, as well as the game taking to long in development... uh, can you tell the waitress to server your pancakes NOW and not expect batter?

 : )
#20 by "Matthias Worch"
2000-05-03 17:39:13
mworch@legendent.com http://www.langsuyar.com
What he's saying is basically this: "We think that these features should not be made available until they are fully implemented and tested - we will not include some half-assed feature that needs patching in the box. And yes, we do have a limited development cycle, this game will have to ship at a certain date - so we might not be done with this or that feature feature - but we will add it later when it's fully done and tested."

I don't see anything wrong with this - limited development cycles are a reality that we have to live with. At least they don't try to put 20 unfinished features in the retail box and have to patch the whole game because nothing works. What you get in the box is a (hopefully) throughoutly tested and polished set of features. If those aren't enough for you to buy the game then don't (now if they advertise the missing features on the retail box that would be a different matter, but I don't see anything indicating that).
They will add new features to the game later - if those features change your perception about the product you can buy it then.

And this is an online game, so adding new features shouldn't be a bad thing (it's an entirely different matter than patching broken out-of-the-box features).
#21 by "TheLeech"
2000-05-03 17:50:21
andreww@ukans.edu
Houston said: "People bitch about the game dropping features, as well as the game taking to long in development... uh, can you tell the waitress to server your pancakes NOW and not expect batter?"

I'll continue with the pancake analogy. Think of UO2 like blueberry pancakes with butter, powdered sugar, bacon, and eggs. The waitress hypes these pancakes big time. You see the pictures in the menu. It looks damn good. You don't expect the pancakes immediately. There has to be some time for the cook to make them. But imagine about 10 minutes after you order the waitress appears again. "Well, we can't seem to get blueberries, bacon, powdered sugar, or eggs, but we might be able to add them at a later time." Great, now you have a stack of plain pancakes.

To me this sounds like UO with prettier graphics, a smaller feature set, and even more potential for Origin to milk the expansion releases. You want houses, mounts, the Quest of the Avatar? No problem, just buy "UO2: Origin Knows How To Milk The Player."

Andrew
#22 by "Rantage"
2000-05-03 18:34:40
rantage@hotmail.com http://www.steelmaelstrom.org
You think that's bad?  I'm still waiting to be able to kill dragons with my hammer and sacrifice heads to demons in the Quake series....<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#23 by "Bob Aboey"
2000-05-03 18:47:10
bmw@carolina.rr.com
I remember seeing a loooong time ago on PC, in one of these articles the writer predicted that one day we would be paying for patches to our games. Seems like that day is getting closer. I would assume players will be buying the game and paying their monthly fees, even without the promised features. With the expectation that they will be there soon enough.
#24 by "Bob Aboey"
2000-05-03 18:50:49
bmw@carolina.rr.com
By the way, I think some people missed the point, I don't see anyone saying that they don't want to wait on them to finish the features. I think the point is they should not be releasing a game and asking us to pay for it when it doesn't have the features it is supposed to. If it's not done, then maybe they need to, uhhhh.......what's that word......I forget............oh yeah, keep DEVELOPING it.
#25 by "Matthias Worch"
2000-05-03 19:46:36
mworch@legendent.com http://www.langsuyar.com
#23: "I remember seeing a loooong time ago on PC, in one of these articles the writer predicted that one day we would be paying for patches to our games. Seems like that day is getting closer. I would assume players will be buying the game and paying their monthly fees, even without the promised features. With the expectation that they will be there soon enough."

How does that relate to UO2, though? This is exactly what Origin is trying to prevent with this press release. Saying "look, we can't promise you that houses etc. will be in the game, so we take it out of the FAQ so that you don't pay for the game thinking there's features that aren't implemented yet. If we manage to get them in we'll tell you."
#26 by "Andy"
2000-05-03 19:57:25
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#25</b>, Matthias Worch:
<QUOTE>
How does that relate to UO2, though? This is exactly what Origin is trying to prevent with this press release. Saying "look, we can't promise you that houses etc. will be in the game, so we take it out of the FAQ so that you don't pay for the game thinking there's features that aren't implemented yet. If we manage to get them in we'll tell you."
</QUOTE>
Weeell... I don't think this is what Bob was meaning, but let me throw my own two cents in: Suppose UO2 is released without these features, and 5000 people buy it. What chance do you think there is of those people ever getting the 'promised' features?

UO2 will need to sell well, and keep people playing, for the promised features to ever be added. If it bombs (or people buy the game but don't like it, cancel their accounts and tell their friends not to bother) future development will almost certainly be abandoned, unless a few developers decide to do it on their own time.

So in a way, people <b>are</b> paying for the patch. Origin gets to release a cut-down version of the game, test the market, and then finish the game if there's enough money in it for them. Perhaps inspired by gamers' loss of confidence in the company? (Hadn't thought of that before, but it makes sense now I think about it...)
#27 by "Andy"
2000-05-03 20:02:24
andy@planetcrap.com
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_734000/734472.stm">Woman dies in bus hijack</a>. Imagine how different the reporting would have been if this was in the States, even on the BBC.
#28 by "Matthias Worch"
2000-05-03 20:14:38
mworch@legendent.com http://www.langsuyar.com
Andy: well the way I see it is that Origin is trying to say exactly that right now: We don't can't promise the features. That's why they're taking it out of the FAQ. Stressing how importan those features are is just because they need to prevent the outcry from the community that they don't care about those features...

Oh yeah: <b>Crazy Carmageddon recreates favourite computer game, killing one!</b>
#29 by "Matthias Worch"
2000-05-03 20:18:31
mworch@legendent.com http://www.langsuyar.com
Geez, I think I want a way to edit old articles...or maybe I should start proof-reading them more often ;)
#30 by "Rantage"
2000-05-03 20:38:19
rantage@hotmail.com http://www.steelmaelstrom.org
<b>#27</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE> Woman dies in bus hijack. Imagine how different the reporting would have been if this was in the States, even on the BBC.
 </QUOTE>

Probably something like:
<I>Toledo, OH (AP) - When 26-year-old Mary Johnson boarded the downtown bus Tuesday morning, bound for work, she had no idea that it would be her final trip.
The attractive blonde mother of two, described by friends as a hard worker and a devoted mother, was the victim of a savage and bloody hijacking that has shocked this quiet midwest city with the type of violence found in larger urban areas.
Shot twice at point-blank range with a revolver held by Brian White, an out-of-work Vietnam veteran, Johnson died instantly.  She was clutching the pictures of her children.
In Washington, President Clinton blasted the NRA and the media for supporting a "culture of violence, bred by movies, television and video games..."
</I><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "Dr. Howard"
2000-05-03 20:45:34
stupadasso@hotmail.com http://www.whitehouse.com
I'm not sure how they would cover it because no guns were involved, so chances are they wouldn't even mention it.  The US press only puts news in front of us when it supports their agenda, and since this has nothing to do with "Evil Gun" or "Trigger Locks" we'll probably never hear about it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-03 20:56:08
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
We'd have MSNBC talking to knife manufacturers about a two week waiting period.  They'd be digging through the hi-jacker's past looking for the most publicly objectionable album or video game in his collection.  We'd have 23 out of work lawyers arguing over the legal ramifications of this tragedy.  In a weeks time there'd be 3 new organizations lobbying to limit the public's access to knives...especially those precious little children.

Actually, if this happend in the States, the guy would have gotten his ass kicked or shot by one of the ladies on the bus.

Never bring a knife to a gun-fight.

-Valeyard
#33 by "Andy"
2000-05-03 21:11:14
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#28</b>, Matthias Worch:
<QUOTE>
Andy: well the way I see it is that Origin is trying to say exactly that right now: We don't can't promise the features. That's why they're taking it out of the FAQ.
</QUOTE>
The impression I got was that they're not putting them in the release version of the game, but they're effectively promising them for later. If the game bombs and they don't add the extra features, people will feel ripped off.


<b>#32</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
Never bring a knife to a gun-fight.
</QUOTE>
Yet one of the most common arguments of the pro-gun lobby is that banning guns is pointless because people could just use other weapons. By that logic, going up against a gunman when you're armed with a pen knife would be an equal fight.

As soon as a newspaper headline says <i>Heston: "Never bring a knife to a gun-fight"</i> the game's up and you guys lose your toys.

But we <b>really</b> don't need a gun debate here! The Brits will say ban guns, the Americans will say keep them, nobody else will care and we'll achieve nothing.
#34 by "David Long"
2000-05-03 21:17:38
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
<b>#33</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE> #28, Matthias Worch:
  
 Andy: well the way I see it is that Origin is trying to say exactly that right now: We don't can't promise the features. That's why they're taking it out of the FAQ.  
  
 The impression I got was that they're not putting them in the release version of the game, but they're effectively promising them for later. If the game bombs and they don't add the extra features, people will feel ripped off.</QUOTE>

And for proof that this is a major issue, bring up Terra Nova's lack of multiplayer features which were promised to be added later. Looking Glass couldn't do it because the game failed at retail and people still bring it up on Usenet to this very day when a new Looking Glass game is announced.

The bottom line is that you shouldn't tell anyone what you're planning outside of vague global plot points and game design.  "It's a first person massively multiplayer online role-playing game in a future Ultima world based on the current Ultima Online after a major cataclysm and it's in 3D this time" would have been enough.  Throwing all the things every UO gamer wanted to see into a FAQ was a bad idea in the first place.

Since Origin lately has been <i>The House of Bad Marketing Ideas</i> it's not surprising.  They're also being scrutinized like no other company after the UO/U9/Lord British/UO:Renaissance fiascos.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-03 21:29:22
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
"Yet one of the most common arguments of the pro-gun lobby is that banning guns is pointless because people could just use other weapons. By that logic, going up against a gunman when you're armed with a pen knife would be an equal fight."

That's a ridiculous leap in logic, and you know it.  There is absolutely nothing to tie the conclusion to the premise.

No pro-gun lobbiest would ever claim that a gun-knife fight would be equal.  No-one with half a brain would.

The specific point you referenced, is that banning guns isn't a solution, because a person with violent tendencies will always be able to use a knife or other weapon.  The point of that argument is that more attention needs to be focused on the PERSON committing the crime, rather than the weapon he used to commit it.  Whether I kill you with a sharpened popcycle stick or a switch-blade doesn't matter...all that matters is that you're dead and I'm a criminal.

If anything, this Hi-Jacker with a knife demonstrates that even when a gun isn't available a desperate person will STILL be able to inflict harm on another individual.

You're right though, we don't need another gun debate...but it's going to happen eventually.

For the record my opinions:
-I like having the right to own a gun...even if I never do.
-I believe that the current gun laws in my state (Texas) CAN act as a deterrent to crime...as we've proven time and again.
-I think the world would PROBABLY be a much better place if NO ONE had a gun...unfortunately, that's an unrealistic pipe dream.
-Since the criminals will ALWAYS be able to get a gun, there's no reason to punish the law-abiding citizens by not allowing them the chance to protect themselves.
-Every child who's died from a gun kept in the home is the direct result of NEGLIGENT guardians...and they should be punished as severely as a murderer.

-Valeyard
 Sorry if I spilled the worms in that can you just opened. :)
#36 by "Houston"
2000-05-03 21:30:11
breynolds@us.infogrames.com http://www.www.www.www
<quote>The bottom line is that you shouldn't tell anyone what you're planning outside of vague global plot points and game design. </quote>

yup

Thing is, when magazines/online sites speak with developers, the devs can often get chatty even beyond their NDAs.  Hey, we all get excited once in a while

So, the dev speaks too much to early in game design, the site/mag can oft. go off on it.  Especially with the uprising of personality driven (instead of straight, sober news) gaming websites.  These personalities derive information where it never was, express opinions as fact (which passes on in a lovely cult of personality effect, oft times) and boom... some schmuck who thought it'd be cool to had llamas to the game ends up making their site audience think it's a full-blown feature.

BTW
<a href=http://www.minibosses.com>http://www.minibosses.com</a>

I've been listening to their remake of the Contra theme, totally accurate, totally fun
#37 by "JeffD"
2000-05-03 21:35:05
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Re: 32:

Vale:  I've been doing some DT training (Defensive Tactics, the stuff they teach cops) in addition to my normal Aikido training, and with regards to anyone with any skill, the quote is actually "never bring a gun to a knife fight."

Contrary to popular belief, in the right hands a knife is far deadlier than a gun.  Give me a knife and give Officer Bob, who is a crack shot, a gun.  Put us 20 feet from one another (7 yards, the magic number), and Officer Bob will die every time.
#38 by "Dr. Howard"
2000-05-03 21:39:53
stupadasso@hotmail.com http://www.whitehouse.com
<b>#37</b> "JeffD" wrote...
<QUOTE>Contrary to popular belief, in the right hands a knife is far deadlier than a gun. Give me a knife and give Officer Bob, who is a crack shot, a gun. Put us 20 feet from one another (7 yards, the magic number), and Officer Bob will die every time. </QUOTE>

Is that what your Sensi told you?  Laughable.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "Steve K."
2000-05-03 21:39:55
illuminati@zombieworld.com
I'll 2nd Valeyards opinion. Visit the Gun Control Hall of Fame:

http://members.localnet.com/~bobg/ifa6.htm
#40 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-03 21:39:58
tc10NOSPAMPLEASE@st-andrewsNOSPAMPLEASE.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
<quote>Put us 20 feet from one another (7 yards, the magic number), and Officer Bob will die every time.</quote>
...and odds are you will too, because a bullet travels far faster than you can throw a knife...
#41 by "Steve K."
2000-05-03 21:45:39
illuminati@zombieworld.com
No auto link I see....

<a href="http://members.localnet.com/~bobg/ifa6.htm>The Gun Control Hall O' Fame</a>
#42 by "JeffD"
2000-05-03 21:48:01
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Re:  40

Tom:  I won't throw the knife.  Knife training says go for the belly for the neck.  If I throw it I don't have a knife any more.  =)

It takes the *best* police officers about a second and a half to draw their weapon, draw a bead, and fire.  One exercise that a friend of mine mentioned (He took DT also) was they had the trainees time how long it took to draw and shoot a target.  They then timed how long it took to run up to that same target and put a red mark on it with a magic marker.  This problem is compounded by the fact that the officer must form the intention to shoot the knifer -- which adds a few milliseconds (no one acts instantly).  Before the officer can decide to shoot, he has to realize he is being rushed, decide to shoot, and then go through the mechanics of shooting.  Precious time passes during this -- this is called the formation of intention.  In a fight, the attacker always has a subtle advantage because he has already formed his intention.

Guess what?  The magic marker was faster by about 1/4 of a second.  

Of course you can cut this time down somewhat on the gun side -- pedaling backward, but backpedaling and firing at the same time doesn't work so hot (unlike Quake.  =) ).  Another useful tactic is to sidestep, anything to increase the distance to over 21 feet.  Likewise, if you don't care about aiming, you can just let loose, but (unlike Quake again), firing wildly from the hip rarely hits.  

Talk to some cops in your area if you can and ask them -- which do they consider deadlier, knife or gun.  They'll answer knife any time.  

The other big advantage to knives is their concealability.  I carry a 1 1/2 inch folding blade, which with a bit of practice I've managed to make mostly invisible when I train.  (We actually practice with 3 inch magic markers, which is about the same thing.... for some fun get some old white clothes and a pair of red markers and go at it with a friend).  Ninety percent of the time, if you're facing a competent knife fighter, you won't even know he has the knife until it's in your gut.  I don't need to hold it out in front of me, all I need to do is keep it concealed behind my hand, get close to you, and POW.  

Whereas with a gun, you can't precisely conceal it and still have it be useful.
#43 by "JeffD"
2000-05-03 21:49:29
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Oh, and Doc Howard:

Actually I first heard that from a buddy of mine (I held the opinion that guns were better).

Had it corroborated by my sensei.  Then had it corroborated by a few cops I train with.  Then had it corroborated by a few former Special Forces (Rangers) that I work with.
#44 by "Steve K."
2000-05-03 21:50:49
illuminati@zombieworld.com
Well I suppose you can't use a href on this board. Sorry....
#45 by "Dr. Howard"
2000-05-03 21:53:19
stupadasso@hotmail.com http://www.whitehouse.com
<b>#43</b> "JeffD" wrote...
<QUOTE>Oh, and Doc Howard:

Actually I first heard that from a buddy of mine (I held the opinion that guns were better).

Had it corroborated by my sensei. Then had it corroborated by a few cops I train with. Then had it corroborated by a few former Special Forces (Rangers) that I work with. </QUOTE>

Cool, let me ask you this; can you catch a fly with chop sticks?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#46 by "JeffD"
2000-05-03 21:53:53
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Doc:

Never tried.  ;)
#47 by "Andy"
2000-05-03 21:56:32
andy@planetcrap.com
I'll go with it while things stay civil... :)

<b>#35</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
No pro-gun lobbiest would ever claim that a gun-knife fight would be equal. No-one with half a brain would.
</QUOTE>
Exactly. That's why it's stupid to say that banning guns wouldn't help to cut down on violent crime. Using a gun is pretty much the only way an ordinary citizen can kill someone from a distance, so it is the only way to do it with any sort of detachment.
<QUOTE>
The specific point you referenced, is that banning guns isn't a solution, because a person with violent tendencies will always be able to use a knife or other weapon.
</QUOTE>
Nope, don't buy that at all. When was the last knife massacre? Last multi-person knife attack I heard of, years ago, several people (children and a teacher) were hurt but nobody was killed.
<QUOTE>
The point of that argument is that more attention needs to be focused on the PERSON committing the crime
</QUOTE>
Yep, but it won't hurt to hide the guns in the meantime.
<QUOTE>
Whether I kill you with a sharpened popcycle stick or a switch-blade doesn't matter...all that matters is that you're dead and I'm a criminal.
</QUOTE>
But if I'd run away your sharpened whatnot wouldn't have been much danger to me. If you'd had a gun, running wouldn't have helped.
<QUOTE>
-I like having the right to own a gun...even if I never do.
</QUOTE>
It's a right I'd like to have too. I like guns, and I'd like to own one. But for the country as a whole it's better that citizens can't own them, so I'm happy not to.
<QUOTE>
-I think the world would PROBABLY be a much better place if NO ONE had a gun...unfortunately, that's an unrealistic pipe dream.
</QUOTE>
Not necessarily. A well-implemented and enforced ban on guns could be successful. Back when I was at college I could have got a gun easily enough, but since we banned them over here they're a lot harder to get on the black market. Still possible, yes, but much, much harder. That also means that the chance of someone grassing on you is much higher.
<QUOTE>
-Since the criminals will ALWAYS be able to get a gun
</QUOTE>
A much-touted theory, but it's fiction. A certain calibre of criminal will always be able to get a gun, but not just some kid that's decided to shoot his mate for stealing his girlfriend.
</QUOTE>
#48 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-03 21:56:55
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
Cop vs. Bad Guy isn't an issue of bringing a knife to a gun fight...it's about attacking first.  The cops LAST viable option is to shoot...which makes the situation invalid.

Give that gun to a crazy man, who's already got it drawn and is intending to do harm and tell me your 7 meters still holds up. :)

Honestly though, I know people who are cops, and I know people who are deadly at various martial arts.  It's a mute point.  Either is deadly, either can kill.  But there's a reason police carry guns, and there's a reason that military forces carry weapons instead of (or in addition to) teaching martial arts.

The simple fact is; if you're planning to rob a bank or hi-jack a plan, you want cold-blooded men with guns....not martial artists.  Sorry.

-Valeyard
#49 by "JeffD"
2000-05-03 22:03:36
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Vale:  

True, if the gun is out it's a different story -- that's where deception enters the picture.  I liken it to what a friend of mine called "Judo".... "Judo know if I got a knife, Judo know if I got a gun....".  One of the biggest parts of knife training is not to let your agressor know that you have a blade.  If you don't know I have a knife and you *do* have a gun, you percieve me as a very minor threat, and are that much more likely to mistakenly let me get within striking distance.  

Andy said it best in 47, the biggest problem with guns is that it's easy to kill at a distance.  Most people don't have the mental capacity to kill up close -- when you stab someone in the gut, you feel the blood, you hear them cry out, and you watch them die... sounds overly romanticized, but it takes a certain hardness of the mind and emotions to be able to do that.  

When you kill with a gun, you can do it at a distance -- often you won't hear the victim's cry, or even see all that much blood -- a bit of a red puff maybe, mostly shielded by their body (that's even if you make an exit wound).  You don't really see a person die, you just see a body fall to the ground.  It's a subtle one, but meaningful.
#50 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-03 22:08:49
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#30</b> "Rantage" wrote...
<QUOTE>In Washington, President Clinton blasted the NRA and the media for supporting a "culture of violence, bred by movies, television and video games..." </QUOTE>

It's all Keanu Reeves fault, anyway.

Addendum: Two weeks later
"A suit was filed this week in Ohio Superior Court  by the family of Mary Johnson, claiming 100 million in damages for wrongful death. The suit was filed against Colt Firearms, and the distributors of the Movie "Speed." The suit alleges that the Colt was at fault for selling the gun to the shooter, and the movie company was at fault for giving him the idea in the first place."

 <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: So Good... We Dropped It

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]