Every time I read "GameSpot has contacted X in an attempt to get more details on Y" I laugh pretty hard. I just picture the company seeing the email and flagging it spam or simply deleting it. It's so rare to see an article on here that actually gets a reply to one of their emails.
@PS2fweak: Respondeat superior - Let the master answer. (Common law). This is exactly what the term is used for. The employer must be held accountable for it's employees actions that are within scope of employment.
If you say, "Oh well it's just one employee who did something, it isn't Naughty Dog's fault" here, then where do you draw the line? At what point does one employee's action become the companies fault? This is blatant copyright infringement. Let's say the whole VW emission scandal was done by a single employee (which was basically the initial claim, that the engineer(s) did it without any knowledge by managers), should VW not take any blame? If you allow companies to automatically absolve themselves of blame for their employee's action then you open the door for companies to do illegal things and the ability to make one of their unknowing employees a patsy.
Yes, this was most likely a single person's action. There are ways Naughty Dog can stop this crap before it happens though, which is why they absorb blame. You need to strictly reinforce that stealing is never okay and that anyone caught stealing anything is going to be immediately terminated. Obviously this employee felt the risk was worth the reward, which implies Naughty Dog didn't reinforce to this person that stealing is not acceptable.
Disclaimer: I love Naughty Dog. I am first in line to buy this game. But I own a business and have first hand knowledge of why it's important to reinforce "common sense" rules.
@PrpleTrtleBuBum: There's something about De Niro and Pacino that make me not want them in the MCU. I just can't picture them fitting, especially Pacino.
@JustinGoSka: Honestly I think that's a terrible way to guess what character someone is. "Let's cast Vin Diesel because he looks just like Groot!" "Let's get Josh Brolin because he looks like Thanos!!"
@streamline:Gamespot is taking an unbiased approach. They are reporting the news without adding baseless speculation. Would it hurt for them to say, "It has not been announced what character he will play"? No, not at all. But is it NECESSARY? I don't think so. It's like the little chocolate on your pillow in a hotel room. By no means is it necessary but it's a nice surprise.
@Lach0121: Your comment did state that 8xmsaa isn't doing much visually for this game compared to 4xmsaa. But the thing is it's not simply this game, it's every game. The amount of calculations is exponentially increased when comparing 8x and 4x. There are countless articles discussing the subject and where the "sweet spot" is for MSAA depending on your resolution. Any game with "true" MSAA (which is what Xcom2 has) is going to need a top of the line massive graphics card to handle 8x.
1080p is now basically standard resolution today, similar to how 480p used to be standard. These high end AA/AF settings are only going to be noticeable on 1440p and higher. For most people it's simply not worth the performance cost. Unless you have the top of the line 1000$ graphics card with a higher resolution don't bother with it in any game.
The interesting thing is yes, the higher resolution the less you need high end MSAA. 4k MSAAx2 looks better than 1080p msaax8 in regards to jaggies. My research shows that the sweet spot is around MSAAx4 for 1080p though.
@Flyin3lvl: You have a point. But you should also remember that PiCard, Kirk, etc are timeless icons. Luke, Fonteno, and Ogg are voice actors for a single game.
@mjc0961: "Call of Duty" : Ghosts. You read the title and instantly know it's call of duty. If it was called "Call of Duty Ghost Recon" there would be an issue here.
@mjc0961: Ghost Trick vs Ghost Recon. Different names both using a common English word. Just having a common English word doesn't mean anything. If the game was called "Ghost Recon Trick", then Ubisoft would have grounds to fight it. EA is trying to trademark a common English word which is ridiculous. Plus it opens the door for EA to in the future make games called "Ghost ___" with little chance of Ubisoft fighting back. It actually also allows EA to have leverage to basically deny people from ever using the format of Ghost ____ ever again.
EA has no legitimate reason to try to trademark Ghost. Ghost Games? Sure. Ghost? No.
OldDirtyCR's comments