There are, were, and always will be games made in shorter development cycles. It’s just that people are finally coming to the conclusion that longer cycles shouldn’t be the norm.
Brackets in a quote denote a change to what was actually said. In a perfect world, with quality journalism, they’re used to summarize or make the quote flow better in the piece without changing the intent or meaning of the quote
In this case, they very well could’ve changed “won’t be” to “will be”
I don’t expect that to be the case here, but it’s possible.
Also, using an ellipsis inside brackets like this: “[…]” Is an intentional omission by the author of the piece.
Usually, the brackets include a part of the sentence that wasn’t said but the interviewer believes the speaker meant or was implied.
In cases like this, maybe the speaker was speaking quickly (and, so, didn’t say the words during the interview) or were dropping implied parts is the sentence (like we all sometimes do when speaking casually; like if I say, “Quick thinking,” to someone. It’s implied that I was saying, “[That was] quick thinking”).
This also gets used often if the interviewee is talking about someone they know personally but we don’t so they’re usually just using the first name (e.g. “Yeah; me and [General] Howard [Zimmerman] go way back”).
I always struggle to know when to use the square brackets. The straightforward answer is to just quote directly where possible. But especially in interviews, someone’s answer may be jumbly, so the most honourable thing to do may be to use square brackets to make it easier for the reader to understand the speaker’s point, but you’re not being misleading.
For example, maybe this interviewee said something like “in the future, it — we might come to see that game development, and games overall, will end up turning out to be player-driven”, which could be straightforwardly shortened to what we see in the screenshot: “in the future, it [will be] player driven”. Square brackets, in the hands of a skilled journalist, can be used to manipulate a narrative through selectively quoting people, but they can also represent a speaker’s point far more authentically and cogently than the literal words.
One I’ve had to do super often is injecting a name back in a sentence. Why say
Mary said the following about Jane: “She went to the store today.”
when I could say
Mary said, “[Jane] went to the store today.”
I mean, I could just paraphrase Mary and do away with the quotation marks and brackets entirely, but when I am trying to prove something (primarily that I’m not talking out of my ass) I like quotes because you can easily just take it as direct evidence, an exact citation of what the other person said that you can use as evidence yourself, instead of a paraphrase by some random person whose reasoning and motives you do not trust.
Of course, that doesn’t get into how people can manipulate quotes and take them out of context, or even just straight up write something in quotation marks that was never said, but…
There’s also just grammatical stuff that looks better in text. “In the future, it’s player driven” would conversationally flow perfectly well, but as written text the tense of “it’s” doesn’t line up with the statement being about the future. Hence the present tense being corrected to future tense.
We generally don’t notice, but normal speech is basically a broken mess for anyone, with ahs and uhms, and sentences that keep enveloping other sentences, and you never get back to the point you were making in the first place. It’s a basic part of a journalist’s job to filter the word soup that you end up with from a face-to-face interview - in an honest way, that truthfully reflects the points and opinions that were stated, of course. Usually, we have no problem understanding each others’ jumbled verbal messes, when we’re right there, and have context, tone, body language, etc., to make up for when the words are lacking - but those things obviously don’t translate to written interviews.
In all likelihood, what Ken Levine “really” said was probably something along the lines of:
In the future, it will be - you know, what we really want to do, and now we have the technology, and because, BioShock really showed that there’s an real desire among gamers for immersive experiences like this, so we’re actually now fully able to to really realise that full, ahead-of-its-time vision we had with the original BioShock, it’s about agency, player agency, that’s really what it’s about, you know, it’s player driven - that’s where we want to go. Because that’s what makes our medium unique.
This is crazy, between this and Gearbox leaving they’re almost dismantling in front of our eyes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen something like this in the gaming industry, at least not in this scale.
Glad I picked up Assetto Corsa instead. That sim is 11 years old and has amazing graphics, a thriving community, and isn’t “always online”… GTS is only 6 years old in comparison.
I think GTS and FMS are going to eventually be a struggle to sell once people catch on to the fact that these franchises are being turned into very expensive recurring game subscriptions, which is a shame given how much these types of games have been decreasing in popularity since the peak of the early 2000s
I agree with this opinion: prices should not have changed, but a proof of national identification and restricting it to one account might have been sufficient to avoid VPN access.
The problem I see is that some people were taking advantage of the low prices with a VPN and an Argentinian/Turkish account, and assigning their parent account as a family member to share games. I think limiting their regions would’ve been more effective than just hiking up the prices.
gamesindustry.biz
Ważne