Thursday Next

You're right. You probably know better. EA were behind all the marketing you hated. EA DICE did all the marketing you liked.

Ooooh, check this out btw:

I agree with GOH. Reviewers should be free to mark as they wish. If only so that I can spot the ones that mark down games for stupid things like this.

Actually, EA spend a great deal of time trying to direct DICE away from the anti-CoD marketing.

On a more positive note... PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! Especially when EA are pulling totally piss poor PR moves.

Lets take an example Alpha test: "Credits" are present. This test is passed if there is a button on the menu that says "Credits" that then goes to a placeholder "Lorem Ipsum" text document. The functionality is present, it is just not working correctly. Alpha Pass, Beta Fail. So, if the term "Alpha" does not mean Feature/Content Complete, and "Beta" does not mean "No unknown issues". What exactly do they mean? Because whenever I hear the terms used by QA that is exactly what they are referring to. Like I said before Jonny, October 20th doesn't stop being October 20th just because one is always running late. The definition remains the same even if the interpretation changes. And yes, I know, no game is ever bug free, the Alpha, Beta, Final milestones are idealised goals.

I think we're using "meaning" in different ways. The definitions of Alpha, Beta and so forth are the same across the industry. I'm painfully aware that they are often not strictly adhered to. Regardless of what some studios do, if someone says that software is "in Alpha" then the assumption should be that it is not content locked or particularly stable. If it is Beta, then the assumption should be that it is feature complete, but buggy. If Valve say content is releasing on 20th October, then we should assume that they mean the same 20th October as the rest of us, i.e. Tomorrow, even though we all know that Valve time means that it could be sometime next year. The meaning of 20th October doesn't change just because Valve don't stick to it. Also, note that a placeholder means that the content is present, it's just not working properly, placeholders are perfectly acceptable when declaring Alpha complete.

Across multiple companies, I'd go so far as to say across the industry, the terms mean pretty much the same thing. As previously stated, MS, Sony, EA and SEGA all use the terms as I described above.

Also the same for EU. http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/10/19/playstation-vita-launches-from-22-february-2012/

As industry terminology: Pre-Alpha: Early code. Not all features implemented. Alpha: Content lock. No new features should be added. Start looking for and fixing bugs. Beta: All issues have been found. Fix the outstanding issues and any bugs that arise from those fixes. Final: Game has no unknown / unaddressed issues. It's pretty much set in stone, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, EA they all mean the same thing when they say the above. Of course sometimes games do get features added after being declared Alpha, but the terminology is standard industry wide.

"Ganon/Ganondorf has been the one near-constant character. It's always been the same guy, while it's been different Zeldas and Links." It's not clear what you mean when you say he's "near" constant. Of course, you would already know that if you weren't actually being a massive two-page dick about it. Y'know what, you're clearly quite invested in LoZ having a continuity, I'm not, so I'm just gonna bow out of this thread and keep playing them as stand-alone titles (barring obviously linked titles like OoT and MM).

Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome is a terrible, terrible movie. I am going to pretend that I think you were joking.

So if the Zeldas are different and the Links are different can I assume the Ganon's are different too? If so what's the point of the continuity? What's continuous about it? Why isn't it called the Legends of Zeldas? The different Zelda's, different Links make this seem more like a group of unconnected stories rather than a single continuous arc. The only difference between Zelda and FF is that FF changes the world and the principal characters while keeping the moogles, chocobos and what not, while LoZ keeps pretty much the entire cast from one iteration to the next. A lot of the connections seem to be retcons in my opinion and any continuity feels really crowbarred in.

I agree with Yant for the most part. There's a couple of Zelda's that clearly run back to back, OoT and MM being a pertty good example, but generally I view them like Final Fantasy games. There's some key carry overs but they are mostly separate stories. Or the same story told in different ways; namely that the hero Link saves the Princess Zelda from some calamity that threatens to engulf the world. Doesn't Zelda not know who Link is pretty much every time they meet? Is she some sort of super aloof Marie Antoinette, who can't tell one peasant from another? Or is she supposed to be like River Song and keeps meeting Link before she met him?

Any chance that Crecente will go down with the ship?

It all hinges on Rovio's next game. They need to keep the Angry Birds brand association, and change their game. Put the Angry Birds in a different setting, Make a successful "Angry Birds Kart" and they can feel a bit more confident about building AB into a Mario-esque franchise. I think it has that potential. Then they can start talking about a billion. NOTE: I'm not saying that Angry Birds Kart is coming soon, or indeed ever.

I'm full of surprises me.

I actually have no issue with this. You have every right to sell something you bought to someone else. So long as the key is bought/acquired legitimately in the first instance that is. Otherwise, I'll get the saddle for my high horse unpacked. Seems like a risky proposition to me though. If you do get the key it could be legit, but already used, then you're going to find you have little recourse. Caveat Emptor as they say.

Can't be more silly than J-Pop princesses go on a music tour while saving the world.

Maybe a legacy thing? Dunno.

Ok... First off. EA have not pulled any content. Valve pulled the content because after the change to Valve's terms. Valve decided it didn't like EA directing customers away from Steam to buy DLC. This has been stated publicly, Valve are far from altruistic in this. BFBC2 and Burnout Paradise served a lot of content to consumers at no extra charge and for a considerable time after the games release. EA are not the all about squeezing you for horse armour. Gabe's quote said that severing the link to between developer and consumer only benefited the middle man, the one who controls the closed platform. In the change from EA --> Consumer to EA --> Valve --> Consumer who benefited? Not the consumer, cos they either could no longer buy the EA product on Steam, or saw no change at all, not EA either, only Valve benefits from this. I'm sure EA is no more happy dancing to Apple's tune than they are Sony, Microsoft or Valve's. However, EA are not the ones bleating about the tyranny of closed systems. Valve is. If closed systems like Steam are so grand, why is Gabe so bummed about everyone else's? Could it be because he does not like playing by Microsoft's rules? I'm stunned that you can't see the hypocrisy in moaning about closed systems when operating one yourself.

Don't know. I should probably ask someone in Bioware...

Physical retailers do not do this. If I buy CoD from Game I am not then forced to buy my dlc through Game. If I buy my console from Game, I'm not locked to buying my PS3 games from them. I make my purchase, then I leave Game behind. Gabe seems to me to be saying the platform holders should do the same, that the middle man should be there to sell the consumer the big ticket item and then leave the consumer to the developer. All I'm saying is that Valve don't do this themselves, so they should not be so quick to criticise others. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it. Valve the Platform owner seem to want to cut the direct line between consumers and developers and place themselves in the middle. Valve the developer want the likes of Sony and MS to cut themselves out of the middle and allow Valve a direct line to their consumers.

I would assume there are two ways to increase "Galactic Readiness", some SP way that will allow you to attain max GR or the Coop missions which will also allow you to increase your GR. In Assassin's Creed Brotherhood you could train your Assassin crew by sending them on missions from within the game. you could also increase their XP by sending them on missions via the Facebook app. Either way you could max out their XP by using the FB app, the main game or combine both.

I know it's only a matter of taste but I get way more "fun" out of a $30 DS game than I get out of the garbage that's on Android. Can't speak to iOS though. I think I get "better" fun out of a handheld console than I do out of an Android title. Not sure about "more" fun. Experiences on DS and PSP stay with me, gaming on Android is something to do to pass the time while waiting for a train, over the past 12 months I've probably clocked more time on my phone than my DS though.