ThunderPeel2001

Woah, woah, woah! Let's not go crazy here I'm not sure it's fair to say that Thompson "coasts by on his hipness". He wrote some excellent books that are still as vivid, vital and incisive as when they were written. Saying that, I do think it's useful to have an understand of WHEN they were written, too. I'm sure he did some stinkers, but I've never heard anyone say otherwise. Just wanted to stick up for Hunter

Just read about it, I'm afraid... Or DID I?

I'm not jaded, I'm sorry to say that you're a bit naive. Of course it's impossible to run a business if you don't care about money (although I note you've changed your argument to "anything other than money"). The whole function of ANY business is to MAKE money. It's not a pleasant thought, but it's the truth. It is a very romantic notion that companies exist that care about other things besides money... but they don't. The Co-Operative Bank (here in the UK) pride themselves on being the "ethical" bank: They refuse to loan money to countries run by corrupt regimes. But, guess what, that was a business decision: They're a smaller bank that have captured that smaller segment of the market (they were also never asked to loan money to corrupt regimes -- Yes, I know someone who has worked there for 30 years). I'd love for banks NOT to be involved in that sort of business anyway; I wish it were illegal for them to do it, but you know what: I still bank with the HSBC, which is something I can't really be proud of if I want to look down on them. Again, the German company, Bosch, have an amazingly awesome environmental record. They're often used to show how a big company can create consumer appliances and minimise their impact on the environment. But guess what, as great as I think that is, they save money through these processes (something that environmentalists who with work big companies - like my ex - have a big problem trying to get them to understand) and they boost their public image. If they were to lose money through this process, they wouldn't do it. Even if a media company does something for the "prestige", it's still only because by having "prestige" they will earn more money in the long-run by maintaining the quality of their brand. If there was zero financial benefit, they wouldn't do it. It's seems like a horrible world we live in sometimes, but that's truly how it is. So yes, I completely agree that something created through the business process will invariably be shite (designed by committee and all that), but businesses themselves are all about money. As for the creative types, they can't be immune to business pressures either, sadly: A TV show pitch is put together by some passionate creatives. The idea is pitched to a network or production company. If the network/pc think it will earn some money for them, they'll commission a pilot. Once the pilot episode is made, it's tested. If it's received well by the test audience they order more episodes. If the expected audience figures are low, the show is cancelled -- often mid-season. It sucks for everybody, except the money-men. Consider yourself to be the creative director of a show that's been commissioned for 22 episodes... After the first 7 episodes doing really well there's a big drop in your viewing figures. Do you a) Try and figure out why the audience doesn't like your show anymore, what's changed, and try to tailor it to their tastes, or Keep going on the path you imagined was the best one and almost certainly get cancelled/ruin your dreams of working on your own TV show. There wonderful exceptions to this rule in things like The Wire, but that was made in a totally different environment. HBO can afford (thank God) to keep a TV show going that doesn't have immediate rating successes if it feels that it will do well on DVD and/or in foreign territories (it did MASSIVELY well here in the UK). Because of their stable business environment (thanks to subscribers instead of advertisers) they can play the "long game"... On a network, if there's a drop in ratings, then the advertising space isn't worth as much and they lose money immediately. Molyneux wasn't saying that he should design by committee, he was simply saying that he's found it helpful that design decisions are tested before moving forward. That doesn't mean that his creative decisions should become sterile or uninspired... because he still has to come up with a concept that excites and interests people. That's the creative challenge. Peter Molyneux runs Lionhead, he's its CEO. If he makes the wrong decision he loses his job, and so does everyone else at Lionhead. If he makes a game no-one buys then he fails at what he does for a living... but I don't think he was even talking about that. "Risk" is a business term that factors in many things, including the previous successes of the team in question, and it's something that investors use when assessing whether or not they should invest in something. It's THEIR term, not his. He's not saying that you have to produce the most vanilla game possible in order to make the most money, he just saying that you've got to do all you can to prove to your investors that they'll make their money back -- otherwise you won't be able to make your game in the first place. His weirdness about how Dexter was made into a success sounded like he was trying to say that you can take an insanely crazy idea (hero serial killer) and still manage to prove to the money-men that it's a viable option... His point being that they've found a system that allows creatively risky ideas to get past the money-men. I don't believe he was trying to say: "By designing everything through customer research you can get great commercial ideas".

That's the second biggest robbery I've ever seen

I completely agree, but sadly in a time of financial crisis, they're just as tight with their money as everyone else. I read an interview with Gilliam talking about how the current climate has killed medium-sized movies -- He hasn't even got US distribution for The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus yet!!! It's an interesting theory, but... The Wizard of Oz? Gone with the Wind? Heaven's Gate? Ishtar? Howard the Duck? Hudson Hawk? Water World? Planet of the Apes? Speed Racer? The all were marketed well and were everywhere... people just didn't want to watch them.

Fair enough, that's just something I've heard from my drummer friends. I think to be successful in Rock Band, though, you've kind of got to be aware of the rhythm of what you're doing... otherwise it's tortuous hell. (Maybe I'm just lucky and "got" it?)

Yes, I'm serious. You can't raise an issue with someone comparing TV development with game developemnt and then compare TV with games to illustrate another point... I agree with you that comparing the creative/business decisions involved in making a TV show and making games is bizarre and pointless as they share little in common. However... on a very high level... Reading what Molyneux says, I don't see anything particularly shocking about his attitude. Although The Wire ran for five seasons, and although I do believe that the guys at HBO thought it was great, a business can't make decisions for emotional reasons and if HBO was going to LOSE money as a result of producing The Wire, then it would have been cancelled. Period. Man, you have a seriously romanticized view of Hollywood. Don't look behind the curtain! (The money men live there.) I have no doubt that some of the best stuff has been pushed through by the vision of its creator, but those shows were never greenlit without the belief that they would make money... and good money-men aren't persuaded by an idea they like, especially in these times. Mad Men wasn't made by AMC because "it was so good, we just couldn't say no". Look at the history of their original programming: Period dramas play a huge part, as does catering to Baby Boomers (ie. people who have fond memories of the 60s). I hate to burst your bubble, but networks and movie studios are ALL about money -- they're businesses. I'd love to know how you know which shows have or haven't been focus tested, though. (Do you have a list?)

Erm, you can't really bring in shows that were created under a subscription system, especially if you're going to complain about Molyneux comparing TV and games -- those channels have the LEAST to do with gaming market. Also, Mad Men and The Wire have/had cruddy ratings, regardless of how great they are.

Well from the drummers I've spoken to (I'm no drummer), the biggest barrier is the lack of bounce you get from a real kit... It just doesn't FEEL like drumming, which makes the transition going the other way have a barrier, too. I have no doubt that limb independence is a huge part of learning to drum, but as that's taken care of by the game I didn't see any reason to mention it.

So they're all out now... Maybe I should pick one or two up? Operation: Anchorage The Pitt Broken Steel Point Lookout Mothership Zeta It seems "Broken Steel" and "Point Lookout" are the ones to go for, but I should only get BS once I've reached level 20 and am "nearing" the end of the game?

Lol.

Wow, that's amazing! (THUMBS UP ICON)

It's that idiotic Ballot Initiative... *sigh* Don't get me started.

Nooo, Miffy! Don't do it! Say you're busy or something... I'm apparently ages away from getting more achievements on Fallout -- it's very annoying!

And I wonder how those few comics you read actually represent what's available in those countries? Perhaps you could post your French or Finnish titles and see if the Thumbs from those countries would say it was a reasonable cross-section?

They also say that if you're playing on Expert that you ARE playing drums. I think the big difference would is in terms of feedback from what you're hitting. Getting an ION kit with a real-drum pedal that's been modified would probably help. TommyGun would be the best person to answer this, I think?

Indeed! (THUMBS DOWN ICON)

I'm currently playing Fallout 3 on Games For Windows Live (hooked into my XBox Live account)... So, er... "watch out". Or something. (I've actually no idea how far away my next achievement is... but I'm hoping it's 300 points for pressing fire)

But not all THREE of us combined!

May the best man win! And by "best man", I mean "me".

Love that photo at the top, but couldn't they have hidden the original photographer?

I shall beat you both! (At some point.) (Hopefully.)

Times Bandits is indeed awesome. I watched it for the first time relatively recently (about a year ago) and totally loved it. Brazil is probably my favourite though. I also just watched the new Baron Munchausen Bluray. That was still pretty good, but not as good as the previous two movies (mainly due to the script, I think, oddly enough). Next movie is The Fisher King! (Which I've seen many times.)

That's what Grand Thumb Auto is all about (THUMBS UP ICON)

It might just keep us going until Rocktober...