Gaizokubanou

I think in my first game I played way beyond the victory condition and hence my clan got unnecessarily too big to be managed without maxing out on provinces.

Edit: nvm

Starting to get into it and I'm enjoying it a lot but man it does come off very strongly as a console port with its really bizarre UI. Left click to move and attack took some time getting used to. Also I'm at that point where I need to let chunks of my clan automate and it's again, little strange. Edit: Oh wow SAMURAI CATS mode... it's an actual thing in this game!?!

Damn that sucks. I mean it is a large business so them losing business does have repercussion on its employees but every time I went there I heard so much story from the employees (talking to each other while I'm looking at games) about how irregular hours are, with absent management but blamed all the time, etc. (I mean gossips are kinda normal for retailers but still) so I wish they didn't continue to exist the way they do.

Good thing they are doing worse and worse business wise, I think (like recently got out of Spain market completely)? Last time I was there with my sister to get Fire Emblem (was it awakening?) an employee tried to give her a lesson on why she should pre order in the most unwelcoming way so whatever another reason to never visit that store :x

Yeah, it would take like 334 people asking for that to break a mil.

Yeah review events probably had an impact on the reviews, and review events are kinda shady practice (for all members involved) to begin with. I don't see the game as a disaster though because it was just so darn enjoyable. Plot wise, yes because it is left objectively (I mean haven't seen anything this clearly unfinished for otherwise a complete and polished product) undone. I guess I just am not all that bothered with nonsense/broken plots if the game plays well enough. Edit: Also for context, last 'open-world' and/or AAA game I have played was... FarCry 3.

I got brushes (get variety of sizes) from AC Moores or something equivalent for cheap. To cut off plastics from sprue get one of these https://www.google.com/search?q=model+kit+cutters&rlz=1C1ASRM_enUS625US625&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&tbm=isch&imgil=2gznth_h5KXH_M%253A%253BdoGoZvXi_V_XWM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.aliexpress.com%25252Fstore%25252Fproduct%25252FTamiya-74001-Model-Kit-Craft-Tool-Side-Cutter-Pliers-Black-for-Plastic-New%25252F1020391_1875602492.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=2gznth_h5KXH_M%253A%252CdoGoZvXi_V_XWM%252C_&usg=__uSYOPLMgyMuC5U9hYbh5-zOR3Fo%3D&ved=0CC4QyjdqFQoTCOLOsJTLkcgCFQRwPgodtGkLEw&ei=mu0EVuKZJITg-QG0062YAQ#imgrc=2gznth_h5KXH_M%3A&usg=__uSYOPLMgyMuC5U9hYbh5-zOR3Fo%3D Then get a small sharp knife (x acto) if you want perfectly clean pieces. Clean and well lit desktop to operate on. You are good to go~! As for fuck ups, well that depends on the fuck ups and your skill. Some users can repair fuckups done on manufacture's side (lot of WH40k fans seem to be adapt at this as their kits are fucking horrible)... some like me always seem to cut off just little too much from the model :x

So like worse version of that netflix VR??? D:

Oh yeah, it's not their job to advocate for that. To clarify, what I meant was instead of using devs' plight as a reason to argue against this, perhaps this should be used to argue against devs' plight.

I think you can lose up to 8 + 8 + 8 + 12 + 10 = 46 if infiltrator goes out of their way to fulton all the guards on the way on maxed out platform. Actually nvm, they can fulton more if they intentionally trigger combat alarm to lure in reinforcement. Best defense on PC is to max out FoB and continuously manually backup your saves so you can override damage incurred by invasion, and then once maxed out, never touch online ever.

Interesting link posted by Rami on tweeter http://frydawolff.com/2015/09/23/sag-aftra-interactive-media-agreement-aka-the-games-contract/ Overall, if I had to say yes or no, I'll probably say yes. But as usual, I'm not 100% sure (mostly due to the issues being largely foreign to me) on some of the technicalities (that are mostly not publicly listed anyways). And about performance based bonus, perhaps the focus should be on about how devs deserve it as well?

You know what, clearly we are just going to step all over each other's toes for absolutely no benefit to either of us so whatever, I'll agree to disagree on what counts as sufficiently trans-formative work to void copyright in both legal and ethical sense. Edit: Also looking back my hypothetical in regards to breech of rights is probably way off base more I think about it so if anyone is upset over the ridiculousness of that, my apologies. Not the weirdness in gameplay == less right, but the hypothetical part.

Yes but that's because it's mostly nameless entities that phase in and out of the market in high volume to make sense of it. I'm saying imagine if EVERYONE did it, like all the big companies, etc, and this time, with no changes. Just straight up using the same IP because everyone owns their variation of that game from having played it. Working with someone working on an web comic, arguing that cut and pasting warrants sufficient change to web comics to ignore copyright is seriously insulting, but perhaps I should never have brought up web comics given how close I am to it. Still, I think that's too far and it's hard to follow that as genuine thought, not one to troll and provoke anger out of those working in art, like syntheticgerbil. If you meant if they were to actually re-draw the whole thing from anew, then that's so different from LP... like if someone LPed a copy of a game that they re-built from ground up with their own asset, well you can just rename it and call it a whole new game. I think proportionality of most LPs are actually pretty easy to solve... it's just too much without permission. I think it's fair to say you need permission if 90% of your video in video series is, well, someone else's work. Ironically enough short LPs with heavy editing that just shits on the game might be best protected under parody/satire and ends up using far less of the original content. And it's not like this will in any notable way change the professional status of LPers. If anything, I'm asking they act like professionals that they are and ask for permission (or more accurately, play the 99.99% of games that are already happily giving out these permissions in advance (so actual practical change I'm arguing for is actually more on devs end to explicitly state the permission... and as for others, just acknowledge the ownership of the assets)) to use other's work for their non-critical-educational-archival purpose.

That's 3D models. 2D stuff, designs and audio are all right there. And not just literal asset rips off a video (yeah those are silly (except for mobile and indie)), I mean the IP, story, character, etc. Take any famous indie IP and imagine others just using it with zero compensation because oh, it's not based on the game, it's based on our play of the game. And yeah this hypothetical is absurd cause situation is absurd because that's how I see this. I think removal of all asset protection right against commercial entertainment videos because there is gameplay and that creates a wholely new product requiring no permission of the original creator is that absurd. So if that passes through, I'm imagining absurd shits coming to be in the wake of it. It won't even be a new law, it's just practicing the current one. I never said "let's codify this new law". I'm saying state this clearly in EULA or on company website. This is what I was pushing for past few posts: Streaming and LP for non-critical-education-archie-research purpose should require permission to use the in game assets, just like how it is currently done with certain specifics, like in-game audio for example. Current law protects all the assets individually, so I'm actually arguing not to overwrite it because they are in a game that can be played. The webcomic thing should be self explanatory. It's a format that relies a lot of ad revenue, so original creator can't survive their being 'transformed' into another viewing platform that's also free.

If mountain is a game, webcomics are a game. And as for the loop hole, I already showed you. According to you and deadpan, assets in gameplay is considered to be transformed enough to be a new work of art... so all you need to do is define play, which is already pretty freaking broad, and now all smaller game creators who don't have resources for legal recourse will just get their assets taken because hey, someone played it, it's a new art, they own it, they will now repackage it and sell it in some other ways. If play is transformation in and of itself, then every asset that filters through that is in for anyone to grab. Remember, all I'm pushing for is to put the permission and its scope into writing to prevent exactly that, and idk why you want to oppose doing that, and think no written rules will magically result in corporations just naturally respecting boundaries that doesn't exist except in everyone mind as different things.

That application of gameplay applies to multiplayer and sandbox games but certainly not most of other genres, at least not 1-to-1. And given how broad the definition of video game is getting, that distinction needs to be clear or I think stuff like web-comics will get destroyed by this. And yeah I already agreed, devs don't own the gameplay footages of someone else playing them. But the player certainly don't own the right to commercially use the game assets without permission. Deadpan was saying that the permission is built into the gameplay and game's cost. I think that is the case in a layman's term and that is the de-facto rule of the market and popularity. But I'm talking about legal pedantic here for legal protection because LPs and streaming now have massive corporate entities like Disney attached. I'm saying that permission should be explicit and never be assumed just cause gameplay is attached so that protection of individual assets aren't sabotaged against such entities. I'm not worried about average joe streaming game and making a living without permission. I'm talking about preventing worst case scenario of corporations just sacking indies working on games' asset rights by using this weird logical hole it makes if gameplay somehow automates the permission to commercially broadcast. It's like that disclaimer you see where the user claims no ownership. Might seem dumb and unnecessary but that's what I'm seeing this permission as. Most of the time, utterly mundane and seemingly pointless, but essential for those critical moments when rights are contested. Or like why EULAs are so anal about how much you don't own the game because otherwise the whole issue of 'digital production' could really screw over games. For most of us it's either pointless or seem extra aggressively pedantic, but without it games industry (or software industry at large) would be so F-ed up because that hostile pedantic language is how law at large operates.

Right, usually game sellers would have near complete licensing power over the assets featured in the game. But that's not the troubling part (outside of games with licensed music or IP) for me. The troubling aspect is that addition of gameplay would just simply lessen copyright protection if you don't care for explicit permission (again, given the current market, it would 99.99% of the times would be freely given). That's just so bizzare in my view. I can draw and it has protection against non-fair-use-commercial-broadcast-without-permission. I can write it has that protection. I can voice act it has that protection. Put them all together and ADD gameplay and bam, no protection??? I think so many LPs and streams would fail the test because so many of them don't sufficiently transform the actual base assets. They just use it (pretty much all singleplayer, non-sandbox games). If that's considered as transformative then gameplay is something that actively diminishes asset rights protection and I'm having extremely difficult time buying that train of thought.

Guess I'm buying this first! Or maybe all 3 at once (ouch)...

You are probably right about why people don't want to acknowledge licensing idea, but given that corporate entities are now involved in streaming, I think it's important to set the legal rights straight. I don't see how broadcasting to 10k+ viewers watching with intention to make a profit out of ad revenue/subscription is an logical extension as watching your sibling play. Commercial goals in the former makes it a completely different thing for me. I'm just not seeing the automatic connection between right to play the game and right to broadcast playing of the game with its content for profit (if you can run a LP channel with no footage of the games that are being played, all the power to you (maybe with kinect you can do this lol)). So the video itself is clearly not dev's creation. But what about the assets used to create the video? I also want to ask, say I make a 3d model. No rigging, nothing, just 3d model with texture. You would agree that outside of critical/educational/satirical works (I think fair use is actually pretty well worded), you would need specific permission to use it for commercial (including broadcast) purpose, right? Then I apply animations. Still same? Then I apply rudimentary user friendly control for said animations. Then I create environment, game ruleset and goals. My point is, I can't accept the logic that adding more creative works diminish copyright protection. Why should adding gameplay just tank our protection in regards to commercial broadcasting? From smaller user end perspective, practically we are pretty much on the same boat (right to broadcast is included in base price), but I strongly believe that my framing (the said right is explicitly given by the devs, not implied) will be lot less problematic when it comes to general asset rights protection.

Yeah hence more I think about it, simple permission with rights built into base cost along with just general acknowledgement of the process would be fine the way I see it. Closest I can think of right off the bat is... what's that "I wanna be the boshy" sequel with the angels? It was featured on Dodger's and ManVsGames channel/stream but I heard it did really poorly? But two notable personalities aren't exactly ton and game is kinda niche. I think the actual sour point, at least for me, is the stories of receiving emails about how they want to cover your game... for price. Makes perfect business sense, but it just rubs all the wrong buttons of this topic.

Yeah the more I'm refining down my view, it pretty much boils down to just preserving the legality of IP/asset ownership, so what I was looking for is more of a public acknowledgement of this by not instantly shutting down any talk of licensing fee (an extreme extension of that right, but still one that ought to be 'respected') as completely baseless. I just don't want to see LPs becoming a hole in which dev's ownership of game sink under. Maybe 'burrowing' is a good way to protect that interest. People can 'burrow' your work to create LPs which are unique creation, but that way the rights to base game IP and assets are left untouched without making a fuss over dev/LPer relationship. But it's just that current copyright laws require explicit permission for that, but it does express my views better. Like for an example, I wish criticism of Nintendo's program mostly revolved around that it's impractical and dumb, not that they are out of bounds with regards to rights or ethics (beyond running the company impractically).

Donation is so weird, I would stay out of it? What do you think of it? Maybe percentile cut is too weird cause of these issues. Perhaps smaller flat fee (again, most likely never to be implemented due to practical reasons) is lot simpler. I mean most games technically have broadcasting rights built into the base cost, and I'm kinda happy with that because the permission protects the right.

No. At that point medium separation is too far IMO. Unless the book is completely filled with art asset of the game.

Sure, I mean lot of hardcore games with stealth elements kinda throws any sort of pacing out the window and demands some extreme patience out of the player. Mobile games also introduced a completely new pacing... during play it's relatively monotone 'high tension' and it relies on really long timers, where players would not even touch the game, as their downtime. Old school RTS games also don't have this peak/trough pacing... it just constantly scale up as player simply has more and more things to manage (arguably to a fault). On contrast, 4X games get really busy early then peters off rapidly as you start snowballing (also arguably to a fault). Driving games are usually pretty linear in tone. Kojima likes to really drag the finale on. I mean, games are way more forgiving on just throwing that peak/trough pacing cause as Merus said, player interaction can really throw a wrench in any intended design and players can have a lot of say in the pacing. As for MMOs... they are mostly pretty monotone with no real curve?