imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Off Topic (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   New Video Games/ Movies (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=1091)

Spartan198 04-19-2013 08:15 AM

A little old, but...

http://screenrant.com/wwe-undertaker...d-pauly-33181/

I commented on the bottom as "Samedi" how I think this would make a great premise for a Red Dead game.

Swordfish941 04-21-2013 12:01 AM

I just came back from seeing Oblivion. Excellent movie, and I did enjoy the plot twists (and this is coming from a guy who hates plot twists).

Evil Tim 04-21-2013 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 38725)
You said it, CoD and Battlefield introduces these products to an entire generation of impressionable consumers. Companies pay for product placement and ads in games like Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, why should it be any different with guns? Why should Activision, and by extension, we the consumers, have to pay for the privilege of seeing the Remington script plastered on a few guns? Jeep pays for their product to be in CoD, why not Remington?

Well, think of it in terms of cars, which have been doing this kind of thing for years. A game company goes to Ferrari and says "we'd like to put an Enzo in our new game." Now, who is asking who for a favour here?

1. Most of the people who buy the game are not going to be able to buy a Ferrari.
2. The game designers benefit from the Ferrari being in the game because people want to drive one.
3. Spreading brand recognition among people who cannot or will not buy their product does not actually benefit Ferrari.

Therefore, it's the game designers who stand to gain most, so Ferrari is going to ask them for money because they're not a charity and want to get something out of the deal. This goes even more for flight sims, since nobody who plays Ace Combat is going to go to Sukhoi and order an Su-37.

With gun companies, you have to remember that their potential market is:

1. People who live in jurisdictions that haven't outlawed civilian ownership of guns.
2. People who live in jurisdictions that haven't outlawed civilian ownership of that specific gun (so that's all the NFA guns gone for a start).
3. People who are in a position to buy that specific gun and would not have done so without seeing it in the game.

That, realistically speaking, isn't all that many people. In fact the real gun company would probably find it's more likely to boost sales of Airsoft replicas they don't make rather than real guns they do. For the most part, the guns the designers request are going to already be big-name "cool" weapons because otherwise the designers themselves wouldn't have heard of them, so the brand recognition argument is also pretty dubious.

Bear in mind car companies have been doing exactly what he talks about in the video for decades, and to a far greater extent than Barrett dictating that they won't let you put the M107 in your game if it sucks. I remember the first time I heard of that was back in 1993 with Jaguar XJ220 for the Amiga, where the game only showed the car stopping when it hit obstacles, because Jaguar had said that they would not allow it to be shown crashing or being damaged in any way.

The Wierd It 04-22-2013 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Tim (Post 38770)
In fact the real gun company would probably find it's more likely to boost sales of Airsoft replicas they don't make rather than real guns they do.

Probably explains why gun companies are starting to license their trademarks to airsoft manufacturers.

funkychinaman 04-22-2013 08:33 PM

http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/micha...rmageddon.html

Keep it coming...

Evil Tim 04-22-2013 08:39 PM

Quote:

That was not fair to the movie. I would redo the entire third act if I could.
Only the third one?

SPEMack618 04-22-2013 08:44 PM

Why is he apologizing?

I liked, liked a lot actually, that movie.

It is far fetched and silly, but it still tells a story well, builds characters, and is fun to wtach.

Evil Tim 04-22-2013 08:49 PM

I still think the funniest observation I've heard about the movie's terrible science is that the nuke they use is so puny that even if it somehow split the comet into two halves, it wouldn't overcome their gravity and so the halves would immediately slam back together. That would have been kind of hilarious to watch.

funkychinaman 04-22-2013 09:37 PM

Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh. Armageddon was bearable, Aerosmith song notwithstanding. The wheels totally came off with Pearl Harbor, and he's been in freefall ever since.

SPEMack618 04-22-2013 09:43 PM

Agreed. (Despite the fact that I like Aerosmith:o) Pearl Harbor made me want to puke. Repeatedly.

And I think the worst thing to come of it, was that for about three months after the movie came out, every prop plane my sister saw was a Zero.

I feel like Armageddon did what it set out to do. A squad based movie about strong men armed against impossible odds. Think the Green Berets or The Dirty Dozen in space. With a giant extinction causing asteroid instead of Nazis or Commies. However, I never saw where Pearl Harbor knew what it wanted to be, and didn't do anything well, other a couple of cools shots of computer generated P-40s in pre-war markings.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.