Quoting: heidi.wengerRed Hat is now owned by IBM which once aided in committing holocaust. Why does IBM get away with this to modern day? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust [External Link]

To this and every other "IBM IS BEHIND THIS!!!" posts above I just want to point out that Red Hat representatives have come forward (they did this with the recent GPL thingy) and said that IBM have not directed Red Hat in any way shape or form, they exist as a independent brand under IBM and so far IBM have left them alone.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: hardpenguin

Supporting OpenGL, OpenGL ES, WebGL, Vulkan and Metal and it's cross-platform for Android, iOS, Linux, macOS, Windows and WebAssembly. They hope to see developers using it across the industry whether you're "working on a game, a 3D modeling application or any other project that requires top-notch graphics" they say that "IGL has got you covered".

No DirectX? That's new..

It does, it was just not on the list in the press release from Khronos

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulwhat is next, rockstar will make an patch so you cant kill any one anymore in GTA? and you will say that is not censorship?

yes that would not be censorship. You playing a video game is not you expressing your right to free speech. Rockstar changing their game so that you can't kill any one any more is actually Rockstar expressing their right to free speech.

Now Rockstar being forced to do this by a 3d party like the Government, now that would have been censorship by that 3d party. But this rarely if ever happens in our western democracies, yes the alt-right is crying loud about companies doing this do appease to "a different audience" but that is just them crying about it, as normal zero points of evidence is ever presented (which they see as proof that it is a conspiracy). Nor would it follow any forms of logic since this "other audience" is a very small group of people that would never buy the game anyway (which the companies knows full well) so that is not why they are doing changes like this (and there is also not a lot of cases of companies doing this either, I mean Skull Girls is not an example of a company even doing this and yet it will still be an a list somehwere of a situation where it happened).

you are defining the artist as an company not the individuals who work at it.
sure i dont expect nintendo to allow an creator to kill mario or anything like that, but i dont expect then to launch an game and change it for different regions, or change it after launch.
they gave their artists some creative constraints, the artists wrote, draw etc in that limitations their design goals and philosopy might be completely different if they had other constraints.

for example, if you know you cant kill an character you might try to find other ways to create an emotional impact on your art, if you writing thinking you can do that, then someone else remove that from the story, then your story might end up without any scenes of emotional impact as an result of that change.
if an company hired me to write an story and i didnt agree with the creative freedoms they gave me i could simply not help then with their project, they would be able to relase it anyway, but not slap my name in the credits with something like "from creator of X,Y,Z book/movie/game" (assuming i was famous), that is completely different from they leting me write what i want, then changing a lot of things without informing me and keeping my name in the credits.
hell the gaming industry was infamous for ghost writing in the past anyway.

and speaking on censorhsip vs freedom of expression:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWqvaMEFIdI [External Link]

Well the way things like this game works is that a bunch of creative people are signing away their creative works to the company so the company is the creator in that sense. Now for SkullGirls it also happens that the "new" company is the original designers that just created a new company due to the problems with their former boss so here there is even less a company decision as such.

Having a creator having complete expressive freedom when working for a games developer is probably something that you will never see. One of the reasons is that it is the company that is legally responsible for what said creator would create so even by that single reason no company would risk doing it.

Not sure what the reason behind bringing in a discussion of the film industry from a former dictatorship?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Craggles086

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Craggles086

Quoting: dpanterZombies make any game better! :heart:

Cannot see how Donkey Kong would have been improved by zombies.. :)

ain't you in for a surprise

DONKEY KONG ZOMBIES ★ Call of Duty Zombies Mod (Zombie Games) [External Link]

The next edition of Tower Toppler, now with extra zombies.

Always felt like Tower Toppler would feel better if the mechanics and sound were brought closer to the Commodore 64 version of Nebulus. While dodging zombies might be cool, I feel that this would be taking the game in the opposite direction.

But sure if any programmers out there want to add zombies to Tower Toppler I put my hand in to evaluate it, and compare it to the original C64 game.

Tower Toppler cross with Dark Castle anyone?

Or why not BurgerTime with Zombies :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Craggles086

Quoting: dpanterZombies make any game better! :heart:

Cannot see how Donkey Kong would have been improved by zombies.. :)

ain't you in for a surprise

DONKEY KONG ZOMBIES ★ Call of Duty Zombies Mod (Zombie Games) [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapulwhat is next, rockstar will make an patch so you cant kill any one anymore in GTA? and you will say that is not censorship?

yes that would not be censorship. You playing a video game is not you expressing your right to free speech. Rockstar changing their game so that you can't kill any one any more is actually Rockstar expressing their right to free speech.

Now Rockstar being forced to do this by a 3d party like the Government, now that would have been censorship by that 3d party. But this rarely if ever happens in our western democracies, yes the alt-right is crying loud about companies doing this do appease to "a different audience" but that is just them crying about it, as normal zero points of evidence is ever presented (which they see as proof that it is a conspiracy). Nor would it follow any forms of logic since this "other audience" is a very small group of people that would never buy the game anyway (which the companies knows full well) so that is not why they are doing changes like this (and there is also not a lot of cases of companies doing this either, I mean Skull Girls is not an example of a company even doing this and yet it will still be an a list somehwere of a situation where it happened).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulbut most of the time the changes arent trying to censor something for another audience that is bothered by this type of content

The SICs always makes this claim but is there any evidence what so ever that the devs made this change for "another audience" and not just because they themselves begun to feel uncomfortable with the original design?

i dont know what SIC means, but the staff changed completely afaik, the new staff have 0 respect for what came before then or the original target audience.

Appears to be exactly the same team minus one guy that where accused of sexual abuse at the work place by the staff. Still see no evidence that they are trying to cater to "a new audience", and honestly this line of reasoning is fast becoming old, that "other audience" that SICs keep on talking about are just some small group of marginalized women with strange hair colours that have zero power and zero reach yet we are somehow to believe that they in secret are "taking away our games, movies and comics". Stop falling for SIC (Social Injustice Crusader) propaganda, that is all that it is.

the public that purchased the game as it was liked it as it was, so yes, changing it is catering to a new audience.
the fact that a lot of things are geting censored nowadays is not an conspiration theory.

yes it is a conspiracy theory. Just look at this very game, you keep on saying that it was censored for "another audience" which is just a dog-whistle for "woke left feminists" and now it suddenly is "oh the ones that bought it isn't happy so it must be for a new audience", well to begin with you have not asked 100% of the people who bought it and secondly a game is always sold to new people (it's not like the same person is buying the game twice), so this explanation does not make sense.

And this is not censuring, this is simply a company not wanting to be associated with nazi-symbology and panty shots of underage characters. Censuring would be a 3rd party forcing the company to make these changes (and by strict definition that 3d part would have to be the government), a company changing their mind is a whole different story.

Like with Star Wars, Han no longer shooting first is not censuring, that is Lucas changing his mind. Now we might not like his change (I know that I don't) but not liking it does not make it censuring. Stephen King decided to withdraw Rage after the 1997 Heath High School shooting, his own decision as a creator and owner and not censorship.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedjeAs far as hating on removal of racist imagery making you a racist? What if it is important to the story line that you are taking out a band of racists, but some sensitivity editor decides that shouldn't be in the game, and now you're just killing a bunch of random people? :P

a good example of that is the series "everybody hate criss" wich have a bunch of racist jokes that are intended to show how absurd racism is, it make fun, mock how ridiculuous racism is all the time, yet it feature racism to show that.
should it be censored too?

Blazing Saddles is a perfect example of this.

Blazing Saddles is a funny example indeed, too many people have always told Mel Brooks that "one could not make this movie today" so he answered "one could not make this movie back then either" :)

Pretty sure Brooks is deluding himself on that point. As someone who grew up in the 70's, the casual but prevalent racism back then took the edge off a lot of the purposefully un-casual racism in Blazing Saddles. You might still be able to make such a movie today, but it would be derided and buried under a sea of angry one-star reviews, much like toning down the panty-line in an underage female fighter in Skullgirls has had the same result.

I'm not so sure, there have been a lot of younger YT reactors reacting to Blazzing Saddles in the last years and they have all loved it, not a single comment on that it should have been banned or never made. However also lots and lots of YT comments on each and every such video on "how such a movie couldn't be made today".

So to be completely honest I think that there are far more people who believe that it couldn't be made today than people who would be upset if it was made today.

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedjeAs far as hating on removal of racist imagery making you a racist? What if it is important to the story line that you are taking out a band of racists, but some sensitivity editor decides that shouldn't be in the game, and now you're just killing a bunch of random people? :P

a good example of that is the series "everybody hate criss" wich have a bunch of racist jokes that are intended to show how absurd racism is, it make fun, mock how ridiculuous racism is all the time, yet it feature racism to show that.
should it be censored too?

Blazing Saddles is a perfect example of this.

Blazing Saddles is a funny example indeed, too many people have always told Mel Brooks that "one could not make this movie today" so he answered "one could not make this movie back then either" :)

Pretty sure Brooks is deluding himself on that point. As someone who grew up in the 70's, the casual but prevalent racism back then took the edge off a lot of the purposefully un-casual racism in Blazing Saddles. You might still be able to make such a movie today, but it would be derided and buried under a sea of angry one-star reviews, much like toning down the panty-line in an underage female fighter in Skullgirls has had the same result.

The difference between why it couldn't be made back then vs now is that back then, the racists were pissed off that they were being made fun of and it was showing them how dumb they are.

For today; the younger generation no longer have a sense of humor and don't understand satire. Life of Brian falls under that same category. Back then all the religious people were pissed off at it (without ever watching it). And These days it's the opposite side that doesn't like it / wants to censor it.

"Where are the white women at?"

I haven't seen any one wanting to censor Life of Brian from that crowd today, what I have seen though is John Cleese claiming that a particular scene must be included and that he refuses to censor it although no one have wanted to censor it (quite the opposite infact, but those people have begun to question the scene now that JC so actively is defending it).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedjeAs far as hating on removal of racist imagery making you a racist? What if it is important to the story line that you are taking out a band of racists, but some sensitivity editor decides that shouldn't be in the game, and now you're just killing a bunch of random people? :P

a good example of that is the series "everybody hate criss" wich have a bunch of racist jokes that are intended to show how absurd racism is, it make fun, mock how ridiculuous racism is all the time, yet it feature racism to show that.
should it be censored too?

Blazing Saddles is a perfect example of this.

Blazing Saddles is a funny example indeed, too many people have always told Mel Brooks that "one could not make this movie today" so he answered "one could not make this movie back then either" :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulbut most of the time the changes arent trying to censor something for another audience that is bothered by this type of content

The SICs always makes this claim but is there any evidence what so ever that the devs made this change for "another audience" and not just because they themselves begun to feel uncomfortable with the original design?

i dont know what SIC means, but the staff changed completely afaik, the new staff have 0 respect for what came before then or the original target audience.

Appears to be exactly the same team minus one guy that where accused of sexual abuse at the work place by the staff. Still see no evidence that they are trying to cater to "a new audience", and honestly this line of reasoning is fast becoming old, that "other audience" that SICs keep on talking about are just some small group of marginalized women with strange hair colours that have zero power and zero reach yet we are somehow to believe that they in secret are "taking away our games, movies and comics". Stop falling for SIC (Social Injustice Crusader) propaganda, that is all that it is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments