I couldn't get past the first 6 minutes of that video, but I'll give credit where credit is due: I've never felt more in-tune with a protagonist in a video game; it was like I was right there. Bond was bored out of his mind, and so was I!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: _wojtek

Quoting: JarmerLibrewolf
Zen Browser
Waterfox

there you go, three alternatives that have no ai integrations whatsoever.

Yes… and they develop everything… oh wait - they rely on Mozilla work and simply remove couple of things, so if Mozilla/Firefox bites the dust, those will vanish into oblivion…

Just a minor correction, but Zen also adds a bunch of custom UI code as well as a feature or two (tab "modals" and split view). Your point remains, I just wanted to clarify this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Another thing that really bothers me about these marketing statements, is the blanket statements of calling everything "AI".
"AI" doesn't actually mean anything and could be anything from a local ML model that can, say, give names to colours based on the "training data" that could be the list of X11 colour names, to a deepfake slop machine that uses the power budget of a city.
When an announcement like this is made, with practically no actual information other than "ridiculous buzzword that's either a decade old technology that can run locally on your watch, or a privacy nightmare of a planet destroyer - who knows! Go shareholders!", how is anyone supposed to take it seriously and come away with any other interpretation than that they just don't care which it is, as long as "money might happen"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: M@GOidThere is two excuses for the price. One, it is a licensed game. They had to pay royalties for the owners the Terminator franchise. Two, they also licensed the "Bad To The Bone" song, which obviously had to pay royalties. [...]

That was my first thought as well. The license for Arnold is missing, but it turns out they already spoke briefly about the licensing in general:

Quoting: Reef EntertainmentArnold Schwarzenegger isn't in the game it’s just a T800. We didn't have his license, unfortunately. But for the rest, you have to ask each actor individually to use his portrait.

What we have is the right to use the characters. So like Sarah, John, T1000, T800, and then certain actors will also provide image rights to Studio Canal, which is included in the agreement. For example; Linda Hamilton is Sarah Connor, which is why you can see Linda at the beginning of the trailer. Whereas our right to use the Terminator itself, it doesn't include Arnold. When you see the character artwork for that, you'll see it's like the Terminator itself rather than Arnold. It's basically the endoskeleton that we have the right to use.

Michael Edwards played the future war version of John in the opening of T2. You see him, he lowers his binoculars, he's looking over the battlefield. Someone like that, we reached out separately to him to include his likeness. There's a definite difference between signing the T2 license and having the agreement to use the characters compared to the actor's likeness, which is separate.

- from an IGN article [External Link]

So, by my count, it's:

• The Terminator logo, story, characters, etc. from Studio Canal
• The likeness of Robert Patrick (if not included in the T2 license)
• The likeness of Edward Furlong (if not included in the T2 license)
• The likeness of Joe Morton (if not included in the T2 license)
• The likeness of Michael Edwards (that probably didn't break the bank, but still)
• The "Bad To The Bone" song by George Thorogood, like you mentioned
• The "Guitars, Cadillacs" song by Dwight Yoakam (within the bar)
• Several themes from the T2 score by Brad Fiedel

They probably paid a fair bit more than Ocean Software did back in the day as well.

All in all, I do think it's bit overpriced, but for something done this well and with day one Linux support, I had to give in and purchase it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeI don't wanna fuel, but web archive might have an old version of the FAQ to check the text.

Unfortunately, they only have one snapshot, from December 6th. That's actually what lead me to try and find the oldest article referencing it instead, which so far seems to be the IGN article linked above.
I had an older version of it open in my tabs for a while, allowing me to compare it to the current version, but unfortunately my system has crashed since then (the dreaded AMD CPU-core issue). Remember to back-up your tabs as well, kids! :tongue:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineI don't really want to argue with you either - you're quite caustic when replying, so sure of your "facts" that I have no will to argue the semantics of "art" vs "sexual" vs whatever.

Well, I certainly don't mean to come across as caustic and have not attempted to inject sarcasm into anything I've written here. I've been careful not to claim any interpretation or opinion as wrong or right, and done my best not to claim anything as fact if there was any doubt or ambiguity surrounding it, so if there's anything I got wrong, please do let me know!
But, if you mean that I've been terse in pointing out inaccuracies, then yes, certainly. It's very easy for a situation like this to turn into a game of telephone, with inaccuracies compounding to the point where the original topic gets buried under an eventual false narrative, so yes, I do try to correct that whenever possible.

Quoting: scaine[...] Like, you're still using the FAQ as the source of truth, but I've already pointed out that it's unreliable. [...]

I was certainly annoyed as well when they edited their FAQ, but so far, I haven't actually found any edits that contradict the original story; it seems to have mostly been restructuring of the order of the text.
One of the earliest articles about the situation (IGN [External Link], November 25th) contains quotes from the developer, which still lines up with what's currently on the FAQ page (and what I've referenced here previously) - as far as I can see, at least; please do point out if I missed something! (again, not sarcasm, I'm genuinely curious if the developers washed themselves clean of something).

Quoting: scaineI believe the devs are "doing a Wolfire" and blaming Valve, perhaps not unreasonably, for their situation

I've been pretty suspicious of this myself, but haven't really been able to find any smoking gun. Of course, with so much of the story being from one side only, that's a difficult thing to do in general. That said, Valve issuing a statement saying that they essentially gave the game a "one strike" review process (and basing it exclusively on the early build), does seem to lean in favour of the developer.
It would be very nice indeed if Valve would give more public detail on what exactly happened and what their point-of-view on it is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: amataiNow I see your point. Your disputing that the scene is problematic. [...]

That's not what I wrote, no. I corrected your statement that the game features "depiction of children in a sexualized way", and your statement claiming that the developer's FAQ supported your claim, both of which are false.

Quoting: amataiThe scene had no artistic value according to the faq, so the devs removed it [...]

Again, incorrect. The scene was not removed; the FAQ stated that having a character talk about the societal structure in the world of the game works better when that character is an adult instead of a child, so the age was changed, but the scene remains.

As for whether or not the original scene was sexualized, while you may see "hints" and "sexual undertone"s in the scene, I read it as the juxtaposition between an innocent childhood "piggyback ride" and the institutionalized slavery and subhumanism depicted in the game.
To paraphrase Dee Snider's famous court hearing about censorship, if you approach something looking for certain things, you're likely to find it, whether or not it's actually there.

To make myself perfectly clear, I very much welcome discussion of the content of the game and its ban, and of course think you a free to interpret the original scene in any way you wish, but I cannot stand misinformation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineWe've got a few folk reading the developer's FAQ and commenting about why folk are talking about a scene with a child riding a "horse" in the game - the FAQ has now removed any reference to this.

No, it's still there. They just moved it under the headline of "How old are the characters in HORSES?".

Quoting: scaineHowever, original reports of the issue, on social media, made by the developers, claimed that they submitted an early-release version of the game, in which a live-action sequence [...]

Do you remember where this was posted? I've been following along with the story and distinctly remember them writing that it was not live-action, which also seems to fit better with the aesthetics of the finished game, as I don't recall any live-action element that shows anything other than very specific extreme close-ups (such as, say, "bowl of food" or "hand").

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: amataiThen let's agree to disagree.
I am talking of the scene that have caused Horses to be rejected by steam and was then removed. Your sentence

and never contained any scenes where a child was shown in connection with anything sexual.

is incorrect according to Horses faq.

I may be biased due to the cultural context. [...]

We're not disagreeing, as this is not a question of opinion, but of facts.
You keep saying that there was sexual content involving a minor, without providing anything to back it up.
Being biased does not mean you get to misrepresent the actual events; what you could claim is that the description of the scene in question makes you uncomfortable, but not that the scene contained things that there's no evidence for or indication of.

And, once again, now you're claiming that the Horses FAQ states something that it absolutely does not.
This is not bias or difference of opinion, it is just plain lying.

If you want to argue that nudity equals sexual content, or discuss the cultural landscape of current France, then go right ahead, but let's stick to the facts, shall we?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: amataiA horror movie with the same scene that got the game rejected by steam would have caused its authors to be sent to jail, though.

It would not. As a concrete example, Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist" (2009) (nominated for the "Palme d'Or" at the Cannes Film Festival and shown uncut in both the UK and the US - a far cry from your jail scenario) features a graphic intercourse scene between two naked adults, showing a toddler present and watching them in the same room. That is a far more explicit scene than the one in "HORSES", which - again - features no scenes with any children and never contained any scenes where a child was shown in connection with anything sexual.

Would you kindly stop pretending that the game at any point featured sexualisation of a minor, without any evidence to support this? It makes it very hard to discuss the actual topic at hand if we also have to pause to consider unfounded scenarios as if they were facts.

View this comment - View article - View full comments