Everybody knows that joke is misinterpreted. Skywalker never said: "NOOOOOOOO!" to Vader, he just didn't believe him. And Vader wasn't his borther, he was his father, it's different.
Have you even SEEN Empire Strikes Back recently? Of course he said it. In fact, the conversation goes:
Vader: Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.
Luke: He told me enough. He told me you killed him.
Vader:No. I am you father.
Luke: No... no... That's not true.... That's impossible!
Vader: Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
Luke: NOOOOO!!! Nooooooo!!!!
Vader: Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny. Join with me, and we can rule the galaxy as father and son. ...Come with me, it is the only way.
I know all of this from memory, since I've seen the Original Trilogy several dozen times. How can you possibly say that it's different just because LeChuck claims to be Guybrush's brother? It's nearly the same dialogue from the movie. It's no different at all.
Yeah, I saw it back then. It was actually pretty stupid as he went "noooo.oooo...ooo" there, the actor was clearly faking it.
It's been at least 10 years since I saw this movie (I'm not a Star Wars fan), but I always thought that to be a misinterpreted joke seeing as a reply always went "NOOOO!" too loud. Turns out this is how they pictured it.
Yeah, I saw it back then. It was actually pretty stupid as he went "noooo.oooo...ooo" there, the actor was clearly faking it.
It's been at least 10 years since I saw this movie (I'm not a Star Wars fan), but I always thought that to be a misinterpreted joke seeing as a reply always went "NOOOO!" too loud. Turns out this is how they pictured it.
Well, Hamill over-acted the Luke character, so it was only fair that Guybrush should over-act as well. (Apologize if over-act isn't a word in english, but I think you know what I mean). I mean, that's probably part of the joke as well.
Well, Hamill over-acted the Luke character, so it was only fair that Guybrush should over-act as well. (Apologize if over-act isn't a word in english, but I think you know what I mean). I mean, that's probably part of the joke as well.
You could say he "overreacted", thou I think it's not a verb to use in the same context (thou he did overreact when he over-acted lol)
Anyway, sorry again. The joke's good, and you'd except it from LA since it's Lucas' movie.
I say let's just forget all that rage toward afterall good jokes and all have a big slice of pie of something.
Actually, it was. You had to always go "i", then "u", then click on the first grog mug, then "i" again, then click on the next mug. All this is at least 5 seconds, and when you got it eating through your mug it's very frustrating.
I also had to switch when I was opening the safe in the shop, because in SE whether you push or pull it, it went all in the same direction for me.
I'd really wish they would've brought the inventory back in one screen, at least like in Sam & Max, and eliminate the verb menu completely. This is so much simpler.
I had no trouble with it, but then I played it on the Xbox. I have the PC version as well, but haven't really played that far. I just bought it for future play-throughs. My next playthrough will probably be the VGA MI2 style version though.
I always liked the "advertisement" thing yeah, it made me giggle as a kid. Didn't know the game it was talking about, still found it funny.
The joke isn't the game itself, it's the whole advertising part.
As for the S&M references, they appear in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (totem pole in Indy's office), they appear in DOTT (Max portrait), they appear in MI2 (Costumes "Makes me want to read a comic by Steve Purcell") and so on and so forth. It was a bit of a running gag, an easter egg if you will for anyone who knew who the hell Sam and Max were.
Uzr> name of novel? I'll look it up for you.
But yeah... there were good and bad points to the remake. The voice acting was a welcome addition though, that opening scene, it was like I was 8 years old again and playing MI for the first time... *teary eyes*
Yeah, maybe Xbox version is simpler in controls. Thou how do you cope with not having a mouse there?
I was very sceptical before about using tha analogue as a mouse... but to be honest I was quite surprised how right it felt. Of course, it can't replace a mouse in any way, but it worked surprisingly well. I was very much a hater towards adventure games on consoles because of the lack of mouse before, but now I don't really mind. I've put many of my LucasArts adventures on my PSP via ScummVM, and I have no trouble playing it with the analogue.
Also, the analogue is very sensitive, so you get a dedicated button for fine tuning, so that you can get pixel perfect movement. It moves quite fast if you push the analogue all the way, so you won't be too impatient when playing. And the fine tuning button works well.
Hmm. This kinda surprises me too as I always thought nothing could compare to the good ole squeak-on-a-wheel. But I guess the technology just moved on...
I remember having used those round thingies on a Gamecube control once, and my was I disgusted with getting used to it. I'd still go for a plain mouse if possible, though I haven't tried the analogue.
The Special Edition is a great way to keep the game alive for those with much more powerful computers which can't play the original anymore. Since you can play both the original and the special edition within the special edition, I'd have to say that it's definitely worth the buy for that alone. The inventory system is definitely improved upon. The graphics are nice for the most part, but I wish the close up shots were more true to the original game. The voice acting was a nice touch, but clearly the dialogue of the first game was not meant to sound like Curse of Monkey Island onward. Guybrush's humor is definitely more dry early on and seems almost like a different character when hearing the dialogue compared to later games. That said, much of the problems with the special edition are due to carried over flaws with the original game and cannot be helped. For instance, the inventory system in the original was horrible compared to the modern inventory scheme we see in tales, escape and curse. Also the Secret of Monkey Island had way too many actions for an Adventure game. Pull, Push...do they really need both actions? Lucas Arts got it about right by Full Throttle. Paring it down to actions with your hand, foot, eyes and mouth. Other than that, the game is a solid game that deserves to be played again.
The Special Edition is a great way to keep the game alive for those with much more powerful computers which can't play the original anymore. Since you can play both the original and the special edition within the special edition, I'd have to say that it's definitely worth the buy for that alone. The inventory system is definitely improved upon. The graphics are nice for the most part, but I wish the close up shots were more true to the original game. The voice acting was a nice touch, but clearly the dialogue of the first game was not meant to sound like Curse of Monkey Island onward. Guybrush's humor is definitely more dry early on and seems almost like a different character when hearing the dialogue compared to later games. That said, much of the problems with the special edition are due to carried over flaws with the original game and cannot be helped. For instance, the inventory system in the original was horrible compared to the modern inventory scheme we see in tales, escape and curse. Also the Secret of Monkey Island had way too many actions for an Adventure game. Pull, Push...do they really need both actions? Lucas Arts got it about right by Full Throttle. Paring it down to actions with your hand, foot, eyes and mouth. Other than that, the game is a solid game that deserves to be played again.
I never felt that there were too many commands in the old SCUMM adventures (well, maybe "turn on" and "turn off" were bit much in the earliest ones, because those had little use.) Back in the day I was actually happy about the mouse control instead of parser. Parser has it's good sides but when you have to search from dictionary all the synonyms for some word, because the game doesn't understand the words which you normally use, then it gets bit annoying.
Actually this movement towards less and less commands is bit annoying IMO, because less options you have the easier games are. I love TTG games, but I wish there would be at least separate use and look commands. In the SE there was nothing wrong with the amount of commands. Only issue I had was with the interface, because the verb menu was hidden I never used it, but instead I used the keyboard shortcuts.
i didnt like how you couldnt have voices enabled with the old graphics, that came across as a half assed job imo & i wasnt a fan of the controls either (MI3 style would have been better)
personally i would have rathered they just add voices with no graphics changes at all or do a complete remake using the new telltales MI game engine
See, the thing about the Telltale engine is that while great, it's quite different from the original SCUMM engine. Even the Curse version of the SCUMM engine is a big departure from the original used in Secret. The Curse engine took the original 9 verbs and changed them into 3 context-dependent verbs. While that worked out great for Curse, it also means that the verb coin would never work in a true Secret or MI2 remake. For example: the verbs push, pull, use, open, close, and pick up were all consolidated into the hand icon, which would automatically provide the necessary verb depending on the situation. Now remember the safe puzzle, where push and pull were both necessary to unlock the safe? Or the rock catapult on Monkey Island?
The thing about SoMI: SE is that it was built on top of the original game and the original engine. The controls were an attempt to maintain the original nine verbs of the SCUMM engine without having to have them take up screen space all the time. New games have the luxury of solving that problem in other ways, like Curse's verb wheel, Escape's keyboard controls, and Tales's removal of choice (one object, one verb). For a remake, you either have to come up with a new control system for the old engine or fundamentally change the game in some way. Personally, I feel that SoMI: SE could've handled it a lot worse than it did.
So when you say that you would've rather had it set up like Curse or using the Telltale engine, think about what that would mean exactly.
I'm fed up of hearing people describe it has 'half-assed'. They redrew ALL the artwork and voiced EVERY SINGLE LINE and then also included the original game for people who can't bare the idea of an update. They made both versions work on modern machines without the need for additional software and released it on 360 and a MOBILE PHONE. All for around $10. What more do you want for that price?
I'm fed up of hearing people describe it has 'half-assed'. They redrew ALL the artwork and voiced EVERY SINGLE LINE and then also included the original game for people who can't bare the idea of an update. They made both versions work on modern machines without the need for additional software and released it on 360 and a MOBILE PHONE. All for around $10. What more do you want for that price?
Well said.
And I think if they put this much effort (or even more) into MI2SE, it should be made, no question about that.
It was nice to see the SMI in hi-res but the character design and the quick sketch like environments (it looks like work of an amateur artist) really made me regret buying it. Hope the second part is much better...I suggest you get a better artist though.
I'm fed up of hearing people describe it has 'half-assed'. They redrew ALL the artwork and voiced EVERY SINGLE LINE and then also included the original game for people who can't bare the idea of an update. They made both versions work on modern machines without the need for additional software and released it on 360 and a MOBILE PHONE. All for around $10. What more do you want for that price?
Well, the game was already working fine with ScummVM. It had pretty decent music in it already, so it was MIDI, no big deal. Adding drawings and voices is nice, but... why so inconsistent? Why so many buggy stuff?
Plus, I don't play games on my mobile phone. I call people from it. Also, I don't own a console because my PC is my PC, console and TV at the same time. Why would I need another MI release just for that... Also, 10 bucks? Umm, I can download it for free from you-know-where. Plus, even if LA still owns the copyright to SMI, after 10 years, any game becomes abandonware. So technically, I'm not even breaking the law when I'm doing it.
Well, the game was already working fine with ScummVM. It had pretty decent music in it already, so it was MIDI, no big deal. Adding drawings and voices is nice, but... why so inconsistent? Why so many buggy stuff?
Plus, I don't play games on my mobile phone. I call people from it. Also, I don't own a console because my PC is my PC, console and TV at the same time. Why would I need another MI release just for that... Also, 10 bucks? Umm, I can download it for free from you-know-where. Plus, even if LA still owns the copyright to SMI, after 10 years, any game becomes abandonware. So technically, I'm not even breaking the law when I'm doing it.
I don't know how the laws are in Canada (so it may be different there), but around here, there is no legal concept of abandonware and publishers hold copyrights of the old games. If you get caught you'll get similar piracy charges like you would get if you pirate Tales or any other new game. I have the impression that LucasArts is currently protecting it's rights to their older titles and hasn't given written permission for free distribution of their games.
Actually they have re-released several of their older titles in Steam, so I wouldn't be surprised if other older titles would be commerically re-released at some point. Actually I hope that they would re-release Day of the Tentacle, because I never bought that one (I have only played it couple of times at friend's house) and I would love to get it.
I can download it for free from you-know-where. Plus, even if LA still owns the copyright to SMI, after 10 years, any game becomes abandonware. So technically, I'm not even breaking the law when I'm doing it.
Trust me. You are. Any Telltale staff member or moderator could confirm that. There is no such thing, that if a game is over 10 years old, then its abandonware.
BTW, your post might very well be the most self-centered post Ive ever seen. You just dont take others into account at all. Its disgusting.
I don't know how the laws are in Canada (so it may be different there), but around here, there is no legal concept of abandonware and publishers hold copyrights of the old games. If you get caught you'll get similar piracy charges like you would get if you pirate Tales or any other new game. I have the impression that LucasArts is currently protecting it's rights to their older titles and hasn't given written permission for free distribution of their games.
I wasn't talking about laws of a country or an organization in particular. I was talking about laws of the internet (that don't exist, but some commercial entities insist on thinking that they do). The whole debate on intellectual property going on right now. And I, for one, don't think that even the majority of world population always buy computer apps from their rightful distributors. Because if that was the case, there would be no money left to donate to Haiti or something.
Right. The quality was decent compared to 1990, not 2009.
Once again, music, sounds, it's not a "WOW!" improvement. Yeah, it helps you enter the atmosphere. Better sounding to your ears, etc. But "not decent compared to 2009" - compared to what? To what the others do? So let them do it, SMI is already a classic.
I didnt encounter any buggy stuff.
Well... what about Guybrush's legs movement. What about his feet not touching the dock as he moves on some sequences. Elaine's hands being too long. LeChuck's head being too wide... Ok, it's not bugs. It's inconsistencies. Maybe for the others they would pass, they passed for me because I was playing, not being a critic. But it still... bugs the eye.
Good for YOU. However many people play games with their mobile phones.
That is YOUR loss. Many people do own a console.
Maybe YOU dont. Other people might need.
You do realize it's normal that something doesn't appeal to everyone, right?
So I hate people playing on their cellphones. So I hate them sitting in front of their TVs with their consoles. So I don't see the point of this beautification just for more commercial hooking. But that's me. And there are 1 000 000 over fans out there.
Trust me. You are. Any Telltale staff member or moderator could confirm that. There is no such thing, that if a game is over 10 years old, then its abandonware.
TTG's stuff isn't being pirated. At least, I've never seen any of their games being pirated. Correct me if I'm wrong.
BTW, your post might very well be the most self-centered post Ive ever seen. You just dont take others into account at all. Its disgusting.
I said it because they aim individual policy. Every company does it now: what I like, when I like it, how I like it. What do you want, it's a world where if you don't have money, you're a worthless sack of dog poo lol
I meant that TTG is a source reliable enough to confirm that abandonware arent legal in anyway, but I see that you already knew it and referred to "internet laws" so...
I dont know, Im not that disgusted really, I see that that I may have been a bit harsh though. I didnt mean to be rageous, but sometimes its hard to show the correct tone of a post in the Internet. ( Maybe you didnt mean to sound inconsiderate either just by telling how you see things ) Especially as Im not too much into these. :S ;D ;D =D :O :F, so stuff might happen.
I wasn't talking about laws of a country or an organization in particular. I was talking about laws of the internet (that don't exist, but some commercial entities insist on thinking that they do). The whole debate on intellectual property going on right now. And I, for one, don't think that even the majority of world population always buy computer apps from their rightful distributors. Because if that was the case, there would be no money left to donate to Haiti or something.
Well, there are us law abinding citizens who buy their software from legitimate distributors and then there are pirates. The fact that a lot of teenagers do pirate their games doesn't mean that people have right to steal the intellectual property of others.
I'm jealously guarding my own intellectual property (which has very little commerical value), so I also respect rights of the others. But I'm not getting into any moral high horse, because as a kid I copied Amiga games from friends, but when I grew up I stopped the practise and started buying my games.
I dont know, Im not that disgusted really, I see that that I may have been a bit harsh though. I didnt mean to be rageous, but sometimes its hard to show the correct tone of a post in the Internet. ( Maybe you didnt mean to sound inconsiderate either just by telling how you see things ) Especially as Im not too much into these. :S ;D ;D =D :O :F, so stuff might happen.
Well, there are us law abinding citizens who buy their software from legitimate distributors and then there are pirates. The fact that a lot of teenagers do pirate their games doesn't mean that people have right to steal the intellectual property of others.
I'm jealously guarding my own intellectual property (which has very little commerical value), so I also respect rights of the others. But I'm not getting into any moral high horse, because as a kid I copied Amiga games from friends, but when I grew up I stopped the practise and started buying my games.
You know, I've already had this kind of discussion on other forums and I always share my p.o.v. being that internet is a free medium in itself, which often results in some corporations, organizations, individuals and mobs or whatnot always trying to establish some kind of regulations in hopes of organizing the way information flows through it. This is the main reason why commercial protection appeared, first as CD keys, then hardware stoppers, then downloadable goodness via user accounts, always hoping to stop this so-called "piracy". But I've been a lot to the "pirates'" websites earlier, and I can tell you that the whole story behind it is naturally caused by simple misunderstanding of both sides, legal people trying to establish rules and pirates trying to break any of them.
Guess my point here is I don't think piracy is a sin or a crime. It looks more like an attempt to bypass paying for something that isn't worth paying for anyway. Kinda like when you go to buy some bread at your local grocer and the price they give you is like 10 bucks, but you know that if you walk 5 mins more you can get it for 5 from a different seller, same quality and everything. It's playing on this feeling of "Do I really want to give this 5 bucks and to hell with it" or "Should I save them instead, spend more time and get the same result". It's the same thing here.
Guess my point here is I don't think piracy is a sin or a crime. It looks more like an attempt to bypass paying for something that isn't worth paying for anyway. Kinda like when you go to buy some bread at your local grocer and the price they give you is like 10 bucks, but you know that if you walk 5 mins more you can get it for 5 from a different seller, same quality and everything. It's playing on this feeling of "Do I really want to give this 5 bucks and to hell with it" or "Should I save them instead, spend more time and get the same result". It's the same thing here.
I don't think it's an accurate comparison. In your case, you'd pay the 10 bucks to the person who made the first loaf, or the 5 bucks to the person who made the second. Either way, the person gets paid for their work.
With piracy, you spend no money at all, and the people don't get paid as a result. Or when you do pay, you pay a pirate, and the people who made the product don't get paid either.
Although I agree sometimes it's exaggerated (for instance I believe downloading the occasional tune or watching it on youtube is similar to listening to the radio, and actually increases sales), it would definitely be bad if everybody decided to get it for free rather than pay for it. Why would people work if they know they won't get paid for their work in the end?
You know, I've already had this kind of discussion on other forums and I always share my p.o.v. being that internet is a free medium in itself, which often results in some corporations, organizations, individuals and mobs or whatnot always trying to establish some kind of regulations in hopes of organizing the way information flows through it. This is the main reason why commercial protection appeared, first as CD keys, then hardware stoppers, then downloadable goodness via user accounts, always hoping to stop this so-called "piracy". But I've been a lot to the "pirates'" websites earlier, and I can tell you that the whole story behind it is naturally caused by simple misunderstanding of both sides, legal people trying to establish rules and pirates trying to break any of them.
Guess my point here is I don't think piracy is a sin or a crime. It looks more like an attempt to bypass paying for something that isn't worth paying for anyway. Kinda like when you go to buy some bread at your local grocer and the price they give you is like 10 bucks, but you know that if you walk 5 mins more you can get it for 5 from a different seller, same quality and everything. It's playing on this feeling of "Do I really want to give this 5 bucks and to hell with it" or "Should I save them instead, spend more time and get the same result". It's the same thing here.
One thing I wonder is that if something isn't worth paying why get it in the first place? Personally I don't need stuff to my fill my closets or hardrives, which I didn't want in the first place. If I need something I can always buy it and show my support to the person/company who made the product. Occasionally I make bad purchases, but most of the time I'm happy to what I get, because I usually buy stuff only after careful consideration.
The reason why there are limitations for free distribution is that making something usually takes time and costs money. People don't usually make anything without hope of getting paid for their work and even when they give something away for free they wish that you at least respect their right as the author and don't claim that it's your own work or make changes to it without asking permission.
With piracy, you spend no money at all, and the people don't get paid as a result. Or when you do pay, you pay a pirate, and the people who made the product don't get paid either.
A lot of pirate websites today require paid sign ups to seemingly "loads of good stuff", instead of paying the regular price to the distributor. Of course, they keep it for themselves. Then there are those who buy stuff and copy it to the others. But in either case, the distributor doesn't get paid.
However, going back to the subject of buying bread, you can pay the baker who does it himself 5 bucks, or the grocer 10 bucks, or you can buy a bread maker for like 50 bucks and do it yourself. To a person who doesn't care about his/her money, the first option is the best. To those who feel "low on cash today", bust are willing to spend, the second is good. To those who save every cent, not necessarily because they look like Scrooge McDuck, the third is a blast.
It's the same thing with game makers, semi-pirates and pirates. It's your money, you decide how to invest it. But you can go what they call today the "legal" way, the "semi-legal" way or the "illegal" way. And therefore I don't think that going the second and third ways is a crime.
It's more like a load of BS coming from the authors to simply smash the opposition. Therefore, returning to the subject of copyrights:
People don't usually make anything without hope of getting paid for their work and even when they give something away for free they wish that you at least respect their right as the author and don't claim that it's your own work or make changes to it without asking permission.
In my humble opinion, it depends on people. Many artists release samples of their work exclusively for such websites as Flickr, YouTube or Wikipedia, knowing that the "free domain" means any cretin can grab their work within an hour of their release, Photoshop it or something, and sell it for 2 bucks if he wants. It's the free domain policy.
No, not everybody does that. But I think this is what internet is about - it's easy and fast of distribution, but it's a free medium. And either cope with it, or shoo and distribute your stuff over other media.
One thing I wonder is that if something isn't worth paying why get it in the first place?
Ever got cornered by a Stan-type of salesman telling you "Oh, you GOTTA buy that!" even though you know you don't really need this product? I won't believe you if you didn't. Many people spend when they are questioned upon their need of consuming something they don't really need (it's a materialistic world). Then you can ask yourself: "WTF did I buy it? I didn't need it!", but it's too late. Or you can also say: "Bah, what's 10 bucks to it anyway..." and be right and wrong at the same time. The point is we can spend, but companies will always want us to spend a little more than usual because this is how money is made. So we work a little more than usual, so the job gets done faster and so on...
However, going back to the subject of buying bread, you can pay the baker who does it himself 5 bucks, or the grocer 10 bucks, or you can buy a bread maker for like 50 bucks and do it yourself. To a person who doesn't care about his/her money, the first option is the best. To those who feel "low on cash today", bust are willing to spend, the second is good. To those who save every cent, not necessarily because they look like Scrooge McDuck, the third is a blast.
It's the same thing with game makers, semi-pirates and pirates. It's your money, you decide how to invest it. But you can go what they call today the "legal" way, the "semi-legal" way or the "illegal" way. And therefore I don't think that going the second and third ways is a crime.
I think your comparisons are seriously flawed. If you buy a bread machine, then you'll still buy flour and yeast (and technically you pay for the water, too). You won't pay someone to make the bread, but that's because you'll be making it yourself.
Incidentally, you can also use an oven instead of a bread machine, you're likely to have one already so you don't even need a first investment. You do need to knead the dough yourself though I guess.
Anyway, when you download a game, you don't buy the sprites then make a game yourself. You download the very same game. So no, it's not like making your own bread rather than buying it all made.
In my humble opinion, it depends on people. Many artists release samples of their work exclusively for such websites as Flickr, YouTube or Wikipedia, knowing that the "free domain" means any cretin can grab their work within an hour of their release, Photoshop it or something, and sell it for 2 bucks if he wants. It's the free domain policy.
No, not everybody does that. But I think this is what internet is about - it's easy and fast of distribution, but it's a free medium. And either cope with it, or shoo and distribute your stuff over other media.
Free and public domain are two different things. When something is available for free on the Internet, it's usually still copyrighted. Which means anyone who modifies it, uses it or resells it, unless the author specifically says it's okay, can be sued exactly as much as they could for stuff that isn't free.
Take webcomics for instance. They're on the Internet for free, but believe me, you'll get a cease and desist if you try to repost them on your website and pretend you drew it. And you're not allowed to download them then sell them, either.
In a lot of cases, it works, because among the people who read it for free, some will buy the compilations (if any), some will buy merchandise or, most importantly, the author will have a day job that's feeding them and are doing the webcomic for fun rather than profit.
But if someone chooses to do things differently, you can't go around saying "oh well, I think it should be free so I'm taking it". I fail to see how that's different from doing the same thing in a store. And if you say "but in a store you're actually stealing something physical" then try just giving them the two bucks or so the material (DVD, box, paper, plastic wrap) cost them (for a $60 videogame) and getting away with it.
Well, it's a simple rule of life that everything DIYed is always cheaper than when you pay to get it already pre-made for you. The point I was making is you have the choice, and you can either spend how much you want to spend not caring that the "top" goes for profit of those who made it, or buy the ingredients and DIY. And it's the same for games, but since you can't make just any game yourself (we're talking average people), you get it for less doing more unwilling stuff instead.
See, your webcomic example is also misplaced, basically because the webcomic isn't free, as it requires you to be able to go on the internet in order to read it, and people usually pay for that. When I say that internet is a free medium, I do not mean that it doesn't cost anything to use it, I mean that stuff you usually find on it is as prone to be obtained for free than to pay for it. In the late 1990s (when internet was just a wee lad har-har), having something for free was a lot easier. Nowadays it's the question of opening google and typing in "Secret of Monkey Island Special Edition" to find it on LA's website in 2 mins, enter your CC info in 5, and enjoy playing it in 10 (let's pretend it's downloadable). Versus finding a "pirate" website on page 30 two hours later, taking a week to download it by chunks, and then turn up having a possible problem with no tech support or something. But potentially yes, you got it for free.
In my humble opinion, it depends on people. Many artists release samples of their work exclusively for such websites as Flickr, YouTube or Wikipedia, knowing that the "free domain" means any cretin can grab their work within an hour of their release, Photoshop it or something, and sell it for 2 bucks if he wants. It's the free domain policy.
No, not everybody does that. But I think this is what internet is about - it's easy and fast of distribution, but it's a free medium. And either cope with it, or shoo and distribute your stuff over other media.
By your logic everything which isn't bolted down is free for everyone. The fact that someone can steal your work doesn't mean that it's all right to steal it. It's easy to steal from the Internet, so what? It's not that difficult to steal in the RL either. Still we don't usually tolerate activities of shoplifters etc. So why should we tolerate illegal activities in the Internet, just because it's difficult to control?
Ever got cornered by a Stan-type of salesman telling you "Oh, you GOTTA buy that!" even though you know you don't really need this product? I won't believe you if you didn't. Many people spend when they are questioned upon their need of consuming something they don't really need (it's a materialistic world). Then you can ask yourself: "WTF did I buy it? I didn't need it!", but it's too late. Or you can also say: "Bah, what's 10 bucks to it anyway..." and be right and wrong at the same time. The point is we can spend, but companies will always want us to spend a little more than usual because this is how money is made. So we work a little more than usual, so the job gets done faster and so on...
They have tried to sell stuff plenty of times, but I dislike aggressive sales persons who try to talk me into buying something I don't want and I just ignore them or tell them to get lost. I have plenty of experience how to get rid of them. If you would buy every trinket someone tries to talk you into buying you would lose all your money in five minutes in Turkish bazaar.
But seriously if we're going to argue about piracy we should move that discussion to general chat instead of doing it in SMI:SE thread.
By your logic everything which isn't bolted down is free for everyone. The fact that someone can steal your work doesn't mean that it's all right to steal it. It's easy to steal from the Internet, so what? It's not that difficult to steal in the RL either. Still we don't usually tolerate activities of shoplifters etc. So why should we tolerate illegal activities in the Internet, just because it's difficult to control?
Well too bad, but that is the case with intellectual property regulations currently in order in many countries. If it doesn't say "copyrighted" on the webpage, every stuff you find on it is more or less yours. Public domain is a way to explain it to those who think that by putting something on the internet and not copyrighting it, others can get away with "good faith" of their actions.
I can give you an even more blatant example: think of an artist who knows nothing of this intellectual property mechanism. He goes online and puts his work without any copyrights. The next person takes it, copyrights under his or her name and has a legal right to publish it. Because internet is anonymous, and trying to prove that you did it once you release all the rights is almost impossible.
They have tried to sell stuff plenty of times, but I dislike aggressive sales persons who try to talk me into buying something I don't want and I just ignore them or tell them to get lost. I have plenty of experience how to get rid of them. If you would buy every trinket someone tries to talk you into buying you would lose all your money in five minutes in Turkish bazaar.
Well, this is you. And some other guy or girl will buy it, even if they have even less cash than you, because this is the way they are. And that cliche still works on the majority of customers today (or the companies would've stopped doing it), because by spending a buck more you get your stuff anyway, i.e. you won't care. But that buck x million buyers = a million dollars made just by selling useless junk. And then they complain about the 1 000 001st person stealing it for free. Wu-how!
But seriously if we're going to argue about piracy we should move that discussion to general chat instead of doing it in SMI:SE thread.
It should be called "Uzrname keeps piracy discussions on two fronts"
Maybe we should just stop it, seeing as it's more of a time waster than an actual topic.
Well too bad, but that is the case with intellectual property regulations currently in order in many countries. If it doesn't say "copyrighted" on the webpage, every stuff you find on it is more or less yours. Public domain is a way to explain it to those who think that by putting something on the internet and not copyrighting it, others can get away with "good faith" of their actions.
I can give you an even more blatant example: think of an artist who knows nothing of this intellectual property mechanism. He goes online and puts his work without any copyrights. The next person takes it, copyrights under his or her name and has a legal right to publish it. Because internet is anonymous, and trying to prove that you did it once you release all the rights is almost impossible.
Well, this is you. And some other guy or girl will buy it, even if they have even less cash than you, because this is the way they are. And that cliche still works on the majority of customers today (or the companies would've stopped doing it), because by spending a buck more you get your stuff anyway, i.e. you won't care. But that buck x million buyers = a million dollars made just by selling useless junk. And then they complain about the 1 000 001st person stealing it for free. Wu-how!
It should be called "Uzrname keeps piracy discussions on two fronts"
Maybe we should just stop it, seeing as it's more of a time waster than an actual topic.
OK, let's end it. There's no point to argue, because our views are so far from each other that it's hard to find common ground. While I oppose conmen and other dishonest business, I support honest business practises and companies, even in the Internet, and I see nothing wrong in the way how LucasArts, TellTale etc. sell their games. For me pirating their games is just morally wrong.
OK, let's end it. There's no point to argue, because our views are so far from each other that it's hard to find common ground. While I oppose conmen and other dishonest business, I support honest business practises and companies, even in the Internet, and I see nothing wrong in the way how LucasArts, TellTale etc. sell their games. For me pirating their games is just morally wrong.
lol
You still got half of it wrong.
My example of forced sales wasn't to say that they are wrong, it was on the contrary to show you how companies can make easy cash, and btw I accept this method as one of "scrubbing" potential customers.
Both LA (in the past) and TTG have done some great games and I, for one, never pirated any of them. But I did regret buying MISE and think that it's absolutely normal for this game to get pirated because it's not worth even 10$ of its price.
Well, it's a simple rule of life that everything DIYed is always cheaper than when you pay to get it already pre-made for you.
So making a game a $xx million dollars is cheaper than buying it in the store for $50,-? I see a flaw there.
Also, your interpretation of copyright laws is seriously flawed, but I wont be said if you get a massive penalty one day for it.
Sure, I pirate stuff too (music, they don't sell my kind here, and the DL services have aweful DRM) but not videogames, I always buy those...
Comments
Have you even SEEN Empire Strikes Back recently? Of course he said it. In fact, the conversation goes:
Vader: Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.
Luke: He told me enough. He told me you killed him.
Vader:No. I am you father.
Luke: No... no... That's not true.... That's impossible!
Vader: Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
Luke: NOOOOO!!! Nooooooo!!!!
Vader: Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny. Join with me, and we can rule the galaxy as father and son. ...Come with me, it is the only way.
I know all of this from memory, since I've seen the Original Trilogy several dozen times. How can you possibly say that it's different just because LeChuck claims to be Guybrush's brother? It's nearly the same dialogue from the movie. It's no different at all.
It's been at least 10 years since I saw this movie (I'm not a Star Wars fan), but I always thought that to be a misinterpreted joke seeing as a reply always went "NOOOO!" too loud. Turns out this is how they pictured it.
Well, Hamill over-acted the Luke character, so it was only fair that Guybrush should over-act as well. (Apologize if over-act isn't a word in english, but I think you know what I mean). I mean, that's probably part of the joke as well.
You could say he "overreacted", thou I think it's not a verb to use in the same context (thou he did overreact when he over-acted lol)
Anyway, sorry again. The joke's good, and you'd except it from LA since it's Lucas' movie.
I say let's just forget all that rage toward afterall good jokes and all have a big slice of pie of something.
I am so glad I'm not the only one who had to switch to the original game to get the grog to the prison.... :eek:
I mean, it really wasnt that hard. I did it quite easily on the first time in the new version.
I also had to switch when I was opening the safe in the shop, because in SE whether you push or pull it, it went all in the same direction for me.
I'd really wish they would've brought the inventory back in one screen, at least like in Sam & Max, and eliminate the verb menu completely. This is so much simpler.
The joke isn't the game itself, it's the whole advertising part.
As for the S&M references, they appear in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (totem pole in Indy's office), they appear in DOTT (Max portrait), they appear in MI2 (Costumes "Makes me want to read a comic by Steve Purcell") and so on and so forth. It was a bit of a running gag, an easter egg if you will for anyone who knew who the hell Sam and Max were.
Uzr> name of novel? I'll look it up for you.
But yeah... there were good and bad points to the remake. The voice acting was a welcome addition though, that opening scene, it was like I was 8 years old again and playing MI for the first time... *teary eyes*
I was very sceptical before about using tha analogue as a mouse... but to be honest I was quite surprised how right it felt. Of course, it can't replace a mouse in any way, but it worked surprisingly well. I was very much a hater towards adventure games on consoles because of the lack of mouse before, but now I don't really mind. I've put many of my LucasArts adventures on my PSP via ScummVM, and I have no trouble playing it with the analogue.
Also, the analogue is very sensitive, so you get a dedicated button for fine tuning, so that you can get pixel perfect movement. It moves quite fast if you push the analogue all the way, so you won't be too impatient when playing. And the fine tuning button works well.
I remember having used those round thingies on a Gamecube control once, and my was I disgusted with getting used to it. I'd still go for a plain mouse if possible, though I haven't tried the analogue.
I never felt that there were too many commands in the old SCUMM adventures (well, maybe "turn on" and "turn off" were bit much in the earliest ones, because those had little use.) Back in the day I was actually happy about the mouse control instead of parser. Parser has it's good sides but when you have to search from dictionary all the synonyms for some word, because the game doesn't understand the words which you normally use, then it gets bit annoying.
Actually this movement towards less and less commands is bit annoying IMO, because less options you have the easier games are. I love TTG games, but I wish there would be at least separate use and look commands. In the SE there was nothing wrong with the amount of commands. Only issue I had was with the interface, because the verb menu was hidden I never used it, but instead I used the keyboard shortcuts.
personally i would have rathered they just add voices with no graphics changes at all or do a complete remake using the new telltales MI game engine
PS Guybrush did look terrible
The thing about SoMI: SE is that it was built on top of the original game and the original engine. The controls were an attempt to maintain the original nine verbs of the SCUMM engine without having to have them take up screen space all the time. New games have the luxury of solving that problem in other ways, like Curse's verb wheel, Escape's keyboard controls, and Tales's removal of choice (one object, one verb). For a remake, you either have to come up with a new control system for the old engine or fundamentally change the game in some way. Personally, I feel that SoMI: SE could've handled it a lot worse than it did.
So when you say that you would've rather had it set up like Curse or using the Telltale engine, think about what that would mean exactly.
Well said.
And I think if they put this much effort (or even more) into MI2SE, it should be made, no question about that.
Plus, I don't play games on my mobile phone. I call people from it. Also, I don't own a console because my PC is my PC, console and TV at the same time. Why would I need another MI release just for that... Also, 10 bucks? Umm, I can download it for free from you-know-where. Plus, even if LA still owns the copyright to SMI, after 10 years, any game becomes abandonware. So technically, I'm not even breaking the law when I'm doing it.
I don't know how the laws are in Canada (so it may be different there), but around here, there is no legal concept of abandonware and publishers hold copyrights of the old games. If you get caught you'll get similar piracy charges like you would get if you pirate Tales or any other new game. I have the impression that LucasArts is currently protecting it's rights to their older titles and hasn't given written permission for free distribution of their games.
Actually they have re-released several of their older titles in Steam, so I wouldn't be surprised if other older titles would be commerically re-released at some point. Actually I hope that they would re-release Day of the Tentacle, because I never bought that one (I have only played it couple of times at friend's house) and I would love to get it.
Good for YOU. However many people play games with their mobile phones.
That is YOUR loss. Many people do own a console. Maybe YOU dont. Other people might need.
Trust me. You are. Any Telltale staff member or moderator could confirm that. There is no such thing, that if a game is over 10 years old, then its abandonware.
BTW, your post might very well be the most self-centered post Ive ever seen. You just dont take others into account at all. Its disgusting.
Well... what about Guybrush's legs movement. What about his feet not touching the dock as he moves on some sequences. Elaine's hands being too long. LeChuck's head being too wide... Ok, it's not bugs. It's inconsistencies. Maybe for the others they would pass, they passed for me because I was playing, not being a critic. But it still... bugs the eye.
You do realize it's normal that something doesn't appeal to everyone, right?
So I hate people playing on their cellphones. So I hate them sitting in front of their TVs with their consoles. So I don't see the point of this beautification just for more commercial hooking. But that's me. And there are 1 000 000 over fans out there.
TTG's stuff isn't being pirated. At least, I've never seen any of their games being pirated. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I said it because they aim individual policy. Every company does it now: what I like, when I like it, how I like it. What do you want, it's a world where if you don't have money, you're a worthless sack of dog poo lol
Btw... why so rageous?
I dont know, Im not that disgusted really, I see that that I may have been a bit harsh though. I didnt mean to be rageous, but sometimes its hard to show the correct tone of a post in the Internet. ( Maybe you didnt mean to sound inconsiderate either just by telling how you see things ) Especially as Im not too much into these. :S
Well, there are us law abinding citizens who buy their software from legitimate distributors and then there are pirates. The fact that a lot of teenagers do pirate their games doesn't mean that people have right to steal the intellectual property of others.
I'm jealously guarding my own intellectual property (which has very little commerical value), so I also respect rights of the others. But I'm not getting into any moral high horse, because as a kid I copied Amiga games from friends, but when I grew up I stopped the practise and started buying my games.
You know, I've already had this kind of discussion on other forums and I always share my p.o.v. being that internet is a free medium in itself, which often results in some corporations, organizations, individuals and mobs or whatnot always trying to establish some kind of regulations in hopes of organizing the way information flows through it. This is the main reason why commercial protection appeared, first as CD keys, then hardware stoppers, then downloadable goodness via user accounts, always hoping to stop this so-called "piracy". But I've been a lot to the "pirates'" websites earlier, and I can tell you that the whole story behind it is naturally caused by simple misunderstanding of both sides, legal people trying to establish rules and pirates trying to break any of them.
Guess my point here is I don't think piracy is a sin or a crime. It looks more like an attempt to bypass paying for something that isn't worth paying for anyway. Kinda like when you go to buy some bread at your local grocer and the price they give you is like 10 bucks, but you know that if you walk 5 mins more you can get it for 5 from a different seller, same quality and everything. It's playing on this feeling of "Do I really want to give this 5 bucks and to hell with it" or "Should I save them instead, spend more time and get the same result". It's the same thing here.
I don't think it's an accurate comparison. In your case, you'd pay the 10 bucks to the person who made the first loaf, or the 5 bucks to the person who made the second. Either way, the person gets paid for their work.
With piracy, you spend no money at all, and the people don't get paid as a result. Or when you do pay, you pay a pirate, and the people who made the product don't get paid either.
Although I agree sometimes it's exaggerated (for instance I believe downloading the occasional tune or watching it on youtube is similar to listening to the radio, and actually increases sales), it would definitely be bad if everybody decided to get it for free rather than pay for it. Why would people work if they know they won't get paid for their work in the end?
One thing I wonder is that if something isn't worth paying why get it in the first place? Personally I don't need stuff to my fill my closets or hardrives, which I didn't want in the first place. If I need something I can always buy it and show my support to the person/company who made the product. Occasionally I make bad purchases, but most of the time I'm happy to what I get, because I usually buy stuff only after careful consideration.
The reason why there are limitations for free distribution is that making something usually takes time and costs money. People don't usually make anything without hope of getting paid for their work and even when they give something away for free they wish that you at least respect their right as the author and don't claim that it's your own work or make changes to it without asking permission.
However, going back to the subject of buying bread, you can pay the baker who does it himself 5 bucks, or the grocer 10 bucks, or you can buy a bread maker for like 50 bucks and do it yourself. To a person who doesn't care about his/her money, the first option is the best. To those who feel "low on cash today", bust are willing to spend, the second is good. To those who save every cent, not necessarily because they look like Scrooge McDuck, the third is a blast.
It's the same thing with game makers, semi-pirates and pirates. It's your money, you decide how to invest it. But you can go what they call today the "legal" way, the "semi-legal" way or the "illegal" way. And therefore I don't think that going the second and third ways is a crime.
It's more like a load of BS coming from the authors to simply smash the opposition. Therefore, returning to the subject of copyrights:
In my humble opinion, it depends on people. Many artists release samples of their work exclusively for such websites as Flickr, YouTube or Wikipedia, knowing that the "free domain" means any cretin can grab their work within an hour of their release, Photoshop it or something, and sell it for 2 bucks if he wants. It's the free domain policy.
No, not everybody does that. But I think this is what internet is about - it's easy and fast of distribution, but it's a free medium. And either cope with it, or shoo and distribute your stuff over other media.
Ever got cornered by a Stan-type of salesman telling you "Oh, you GOTTA buy that!" even though you know you don't really need this product? I won't believe you if you didn't. Many people spend when they are questioned upon their need of consuming something they don't really need (it's a materialistic world). Then you can ask yourself: "WTF did I buy it? I didn't need it!", but it's too late. Or you can also say: "Bah, what's 10 bucks to it anyway..." and be right and wrong at the same time. The point is we can spend, but companies will always want us to spend a little more than usual because this is how money is made. So we work a little more than usual, so the job gets done faster and so on...
I think your comparisons are seriously flawed. If you buy a bread machine, then you'll still buy flour and yeast (and technically you pay for the water, too). You won't pay someone to make the bread, but that's because you'll be making it yourself.
Incidentally, you can also use an oven instead of a bread machine, you're likely to have one already so you don't even need a first investment. You do need to knead the dough yourself though I guess.
Anyway, when you download a game, you don't buy the sprites then make a game yourself. You download the very same game. So no, it's not like making your own bread rather than buying it all made.
Free and public domain are two different things. When something is available for free on the Internet, it's usually still copyrighted. Which means anyone who modifies it, uses it or resells it, unless the author specifically says it's okay, can be sued exactly as much as they could for stuff that isn't free.
Take webcomics for instance. They're on the Internet for free, but believe me, you'll get a cease and desist if you try to repost them on your website and pretend you drew it. And you're not allowed to download them then sell them, either.
In a lot of cases, it works, because among the people who read it for free, some will buy the compilations (if any), some will buy merchandise or, most importantly, the author will have a day job that's feeding them and are doing the webcomic for fun rather than profit.
But if someone chooses to do things differently, you can't go around saying "oh well, I think it should be free so I'm taking it". I fail to see how that's different from doing the same thing in a store. And if you say "but in a store you're actually stealing something physical" then try just giving them the two bucks or so the material (DVD, box, paper, plastic wrap) cost them (for a $60 videogame) and getting away with it.
See, your webcomic example is also misplaced, basically because the webcomic isn't free, as it requires you to be able to go on the internet in order to read it, and people usually pay for that. When I say that internet is a free medium, I do not mean that it doesn't cost anything to use it, I mean that stuff you usually find on it is as prone to be obtained for free than to pay for it. In the late 1990s (when internet was just a wee lad har-har), having something for free was a lot easier. Nowadays it's the question of opening google and typing in "Secret of Monkey Island Special Edition" to find it on LA's website in 2 mins, enter your CC info in 5, and enjoy playing it in 10 (let's pretend it's downloadable). Versus finding a "pirate" website on page 30 two hours later, taking a week to download it by chunks, and then turn up having a possible problem with no tech support or something. But potentially yes, you got it for free.
See the diff?
By your logic everything which isn't bolted down is free for everyone. The fact that someone can steal your work doesn't mean that it's all right to steal it. It's easy to steal from the Internet, so what? It's not that difficult to steal in the RL either. Still we don't usually tolerate activities of shoplifters etc. So why should we tolerate illegal activities in the Internet, just because it's difficult to control?
They have tried to sell stuff plenty of times, but I dislike aggressive sales persons who try to talk me into buying something I don't want and I just ignore them or tell them to get lost. I have plenty of experience how to get rid of them. If you would buy every trinket someone tries to talk you into buying you would lose all your money in five minutes in Turkish bazaar.
But seriously if we're going to argue about piracy we should move that discussion to general chat instead of doing it in SMI:SE thread.
Actually, piracy fits a Monkey Island thread more than many stuff we say here fit the thread they're said in.
I can give you an even more blatant example: think of an artist who knows nothing of this intellectual property mechanism. He goes online and puts his work without any copyrights. The next person takes it, copyrights under his or her name and has a legal right to publish it. Because internet is anonymous, and trying to prove that you did it once you release all the rights is almost impossible.
Well, this is you. And some other guy or girl will buy it, even if they have even less cash than you, because this is the way they are. And that cliche still works on the majority of customers today (or the companies would've stopped doing it), because by spending a buck more you get your stuff anyway, i.e. you won't care. But that buck x million buyers = a million dollars made just by selling useless junk. And then they complain about the 1 000 001st person stealing it for free. Wu-how!
It should be called "Uzrname keeps piracy discussions on two fronts"
Maybe we should just stop it, seeing as it's more of a time waster than an actual topic.
OK, let's end it. There's no point to argue, because our views are so far from each other that it's hard to find common ground. While I oppose conmen and other dishonest business, I support honest business practises and companies, even in the Internet, and I see nothing wrong in the way how LucasArts, TellTale etc. sell their games. For me pirating their games is just morally wrong.
You still got half of it wrong.
My example of forced sales wasn't to say that they are wrong, it was on the contrary to show you how companies can make easy cash, and btw I accept this method as one of "scrubbing" potential customers.
Both LA (in the past) and TTG have done some great games and I, for one, never pirated any of them. But I did regret buying MISE and think that it's absolutely normal for this game to get pirated because it's not worth even 10$ of its price.
And this is where the brouhaha started.
Also, your interpretation of copyright laws is seriously flawed, but I wont be said if you get a massive penalty one day for it.
Sure, I pirate stuff too (music, they don't sell my kind here, and the DL services have aweful DRM) but not videogames, I always buy those...