|
|
Doesn't necessarily mean an end to Bioshock - in fact the final paragraph more-or-less says as much, too -
"I'm handing the reins of our creation, the BioShock universe, to 2K so our new venture can focus entirely on replayable narrative."
They lost me with Bioshock2 - while I loved the Bioshock too, I was disgusted when I learned that (a) I couldn't play BS2 on the PC with a Xbox controller (some bullsh*t about the interface not being suitable for games controllers - yet the game is available on PS and XB  ), but the real clincher came when I (b) couldn't load a single-player game without being connected to the net. I paid for the game yet had to pay a third party simply to make the copy-protection happy. Thanks, but no thanks. I wouldn't buy another Bioshock game after that debacle. (Yes, I realize there are 3rd party work-arounds. It's not the point)
It also forced me into the GFWL/Steam horror-show. I never played it online yet was continually forced to dowload updates before bein able to just play. Being on a 3GB/$50 3G data-plan at the time, the costs were mounting-up fast. Elephant-that for a joke. Now I just buy 2nd hand PS3 games. My last trip cost $12 for The Bourne Supremacy($8) and RedFaction($4). Sure, they're oldish, but so is Doom - I still enjoy Doom3 and Quake4.
I ended up giving BS2 away to avoid the frustration all of these issues caused
Reading between the lines, I suspect that a number of decisions were taken out of the hands of those closest to the game, and that by concentrating on a smaller, 'flatter' team, there would be an ability to free themselves from the kinds of actions some would find unpalatable.
Shame really. The artwork was stunning and the devs fellow Ausies. I'm not going to support choices like that though. Even SimCity got an offline mode..
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a great news for me.
This is a creator's rally call for freedom. Only a free creator can create the great and unexpected.
I can't wait to see their next game, will most likely be a hit. 
|
|
|
|
|
Clicky[^]
I hope this doesn't put up the price of Danish Bacon!
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying this because I'm Danish, but they're doing the right thing. And it's about time! I wish that Sweden would do the same (and other countries for that matter). Halal and Kosher slaughter is an abomination that shouldn't take place in the 21st century.
I have nothing against religion, but muslims and jews really should keep up with time instead of klinging themselves to 2000 year old "laws".
I'm just afraid that a ban will not be respected and that such slaughter will go on in the hidden. Hope that the Danish police will have the guts to follow up on this!
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: Halal and Kosher slaughter is an abomination that shouldn't take place in the 21st century.
Please explain. And what has it to do with time? Would it be more acceptable in 1999?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
While I respect all religions, (I too believe in God), holy requirements about what shall and shall not be eaten are pure BS. (Yes, and I know that for some of you the rest is pure BS as well, so no need to start a thread about it).
Religions *might* have justification about very controversial positions (homosexuality, abortion, ... you get the picture- and with that I mean, you could possibly derive a logical argumentation for these, but I fail to see why a God should want me to only eat this and not that. I really fail to see the logical link, especially since it *could* mean cruelty for the slaughtered animals1, which, after all, are also creatures of God.
1. I know this is still controversial.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand food laws that were written 2000 years before refrigeration and meant for people living in a desert and without medicines.
But hey, times have changed.
We have hygiene now, and penicillin, and fridge-freezers.
BS laws on crap like this only ridicule further the already ridiculous posturing of the religionists.
Personally I dislike all religion, but especially the doctrines of cruelty found in them.
From the abuse of helpless children to the misogynist views they all espouse, and especially cruelty to animals.
I am not a veggie, I love meat, but I do not want my meat arriving on my plate via a cruel death.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
>> misogynist views they all espouse
Don't label us all with the Abrahamic brush!
|
|
|
|
|
Amen! I agree. 
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
If you undo one religious edict, you can undo them all eventually. That means, it's not a religion anymore, but a clubhouse. Either leave the religion entirely or believe in it as is, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
How about the religion evolve and keep up with the times and changes around it? 
You can't apply everything that was written 2000 years ago directly to society today. 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
If you truly believe in a religion, then you must believe it is the Almighty's word. You cannot change "God's" words to keep up with the times. Leave the religion or stay. Changing it means you don't have faith, but you need someone to still tell you what to think.
|
|
|
|
|
How about free will and thinking for yourself? If that's not allowed, then religion is merely a tool for the clever to oppress the stupid.
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: How about free will and thinking for yourself? If that's not allowed, then religion is merely a tool for the clever to oppress the stupid.
By all means! I'm absolutely against religion for that reason. However, if religion is meant to be modified by anyone, then it is not a religion, but a clubhouse as I stated. Personally, I enjoy more the philosophy of theology than religion because that allows room for discussion. If that's what you want, leave religion to those it brings peace and happiness to and find your own elsewhere. Saying religion should change goes against what religion is in my opinion, even if what it is is wrong to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
Then clubhouses is all we have.
Just look at the first council of Nicaea where Emperor Constantine moulded Christianity into his wishes and created the Catholic church.
Explain the reason for the existance of Shiites and Sunni (Or actually don't, I've already read up on it).
Or the mass of different sects out there.
Religions are evolving.
|
|
|
|
|
To some degree they are evolving. However, when a group of people disagree with a religion, they're entitled to leave it and join or form another. However, as far as I know, there is no religion of "believe whatever you want and so will I, but we're still called the same religion". That's why you have sunni and shiites and a few other flavors of Islam. Either practice what they preach or don't. But you can't practice something else and claim you're still part of them. They will shun you. Personally, I prefer my faith to be my own. The truth is in me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: as far as I know, there is no religion of "believe whatever you want and so will I, but we're still called the same religion".
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[^] 
I'm wearing a colander on my head to demonstrate my allegiance to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," Mr Alm wrote in his blog.
|
|
|
|
|
Not a huge fan of spaghetti. If it was a steak-ish religion, I would have joined.
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: If it was a steak-ish religion, I would have joined.
As long as it is not Halal or Kosher Steak I will join too. 
|
|
|
|
|
That would be fine if what the religious texts say wasn't open to interpretation. Because they are, different people can still fully believe in the same text, but in a different way, and you then end up with different religions/factions/whatever all claiming to be the only true followers of God's word.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see such a law in Germany, i mean i love meat on my plate, but this Kind of slaughter is just dishonerable for animals.
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
The article's a bit vague.
A giraffe was slaughtered and fed to lions, but the picture shows one that was shot and autopsied. If they're not the same, maybe they need to just enact giraffe laws. Some of the comments were valid.
And no, I don't eat halal.
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the two things have nothing to do with each other. I can understand people drawing parallels because of their nature, but both the religious slaughter and the slaughter of a healthy giraffe just because of space requirements are wrong and should be condemned. I signed a lot of petitions in favour of the giraffe, but in the end it seems it couldn't be stopped. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to stop both that and the religious animal torture. 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 19-Feb-14 7:40am.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree. However, getting the people angry over religiously sanctioned food by using something that appears to be completely irrelevant is proof that people are stupid and easily manipulated. Unfortunately, the government, corporations, and people have been doing that forever (almost every excuse for war comes to mind).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
