introvert

It's possible. There are numerous reasons why this could be in there. Here are a few thoughts:

01) They found that they had to have this kind of PS3-specific data in there in order to keep the engine stable. UE3, like most game engines, has its quirks. It may have been throwing errors because this data didn't exist for PS3, so they put it in just to get rid of them.

02) Maybe they were curious and attempted a PS3 build just for the fun of it. Whether the game was shipping or not, they might have experimented just to see how it would run. Game developers are tinkerers, we're like those guys that try to run linux on their microwaves/coffeemakers/toasters/etc. Sometimes we have a bored day and try something out just to see if it works. This may be a remnant of one of those experiments.

03) Maybe they were planning/theorizing a PS3 build at some point, doing some work in case EA decided to publish on that platform, and it got scrapped so they stopped. I've been on projects, both with and without UE3, where we thought we were shipping on a specific list of platforms and that list changed before we completed development. I've been on projects where the publisher dictated changes like this three months from beta, and we've had to scramble with our hair on fire to get it done.

I doubt I've shed much light here. The problem is that there are so many possibilities for why that is there. But given the multiplatform nature of UE3 and the possibilities and uncertainties developers experience during development, it's impossible to look at this and say "OMG they're lying, they're going to ship for PS3." All we can do is take their word for it.

I work in a professional capacity with Unreal and I can tell you that the core engine has code and script for all three platforms. Removing it would be a significant effort and definitely not worth the trouble. So the claim of the code being there because it's a multiplatform engine is totally legit.

They still may be deflecting on the PS3 issue though, can't say for sure on that. I have no clue what their plans are because I don't work with them.

What we truly need is to get people on the air who can handle themselves. This kid made a fool of himself attempting to argue these points. He obviously did no research beforehand and wasn't armed with the facts AND that ability to speak to a television camera.

We need evangelists who can get on TV and fire back at these people.

Here's a start:

You don't play a terrorist. You play a CIA agent who has infiltrated a terrorist organization. The purpose of the scene is to show you the horrors that these terrorists are guilty of committing and give the player stronger motivation to finish the game and stop the terrorists. The content seen in this game is no different than the depictions of terrorist violence you witness in television shows like Law & Order, FlashForward, etc. Yes, the gun is put in your hands, but it's your choice whether or not to pull the trigger. The game is trying to teach the value of human life.

And on the subject of kids playing the game:

The ratings exist for a reason. They're clear, and they've won awards and have been praised by congress for their clarity and the information they provide. It is the parent's responsibility to keep these games out of the hands of their children.

When he says "Once it's in the home an 8 year old can play it, there's nothing to stop it":

Wrong. The parent is there to stop it. If a parent left a loaded gun sitting on the table and their child picked it up and hurt himself or someone else, the parent would be blamed. This is no different. It is a parent's responsibility to keep adult material away from their children, whether it be alcohol, pornography, violent video games, violent films or a loaded weapon. To say it's not is to give parents a pass on their obligation as a parent, which flies in the face of Fox News' constant complaining about the lack of responsibility among people of this nation.


We need someone on television who can say these things and not look like a bumbling moron the moment he's put in front of a microphone. I know this kid meant well, but he did more harm than good.

If they want to offer the customer flexibility, here's a simple solution:

Include a voucher in every box for a free A/V cable of choice. HDMI, component, RF switch, whatever the options are. Then they're not cheating us AND providing flexibility.

Otherwise this is an incredibly lame PR excuse.

Also, the legislation would have to specifically back the ESRB ratings. The reason I've opposed legislation in the past is that it prohibits the sale of "violent video games" to children. That's too vague. It needs to be very specific about backing the ESRB's ratings. Then I would support it, and that would solve this issue.

The solution to this is simple. Pass legislation that prohibits the sale of M rated games to people 17 and under. Prohibit the sale of T rated games to people 13 and under. If people under age want the game, their parents can buy it for them.

Give the ESRB legal teeth. That's all that needs to happen here. We don't need to regulate content, we don't need to ban certain types of content, just pass legislation that enforces the ESRB's rating system and penalizes retailers severely for violating that law. Problem solved.

We have two 360s in our house. One was purchased two months after launch, the other about a year after launch. Between the two of them, we have had SEVEN red ring of death incidents. The second unit was purchased, in part, so that we could have another 360 on hand to play when one was out of commission. When both are working fine, we use them to play multiplayer games on our LAN.

We've had two original Xbox units die on us as well. Unfortunately, with those, there was no amazing warranty to take care of us. Our current Xbox has been around for about two years and seems to be doing well, although it doesn't get a lot of play.

In contrast, we have a launch day Wii and a launch day 60GB PS3, both of which perform wonderfully and have never had even so much as a hiccup. We have 22 consoles, ranging from the Atari 2600 to the current trio, and none of them have ever failed. The Microsoft units are the only ones that have ever given us trouble, and in the case of the 360, it's been particularly brutal.

I'm with Geoffrey on this. I'm going to be extremely cautious about purchasing the next generation Microsoft console. While the games are great, there's an ever present fear that the unit will drop dead when we turn it on, and that's just not fun. I also wonder what will happen in 2025 when we try to turn our 360 on and play some "old school" games. I imagine we'll be screwed. Yet, somehow, I get the feeling that the NES I received for Christmas in 1985 will still be alive and kicking.

Landshark gun. Accept no substitute.

Celebrities. Imagine the damage Rosie O'Donnell would do. Wow.

Fooking Extra Special