Now, all the kids/children will be copycats.

*eia *happy

>> ^sixshot:

Can someone clarify for me? Is this the same guy who did the Wizards in Winter?



I'm not sure, but I'd like to know as well. I was operating under the assumption that it was the same guy, but at this point (5-6 years later or whatever) it could very easily be a "copycat."

Put it this way , if you replaced all the art work in crush the castle with angry birds most people would think it was angry birds.

I don't mind people taking concepts and only changing a small part but the issue with angry birds is that angry birds is so little of a change and yet they capitalized fincaily on it so much more and gets all the recognisoin.

Good Flash games consistently gets ripped off / coppied / used as fundimentals of game play , but not attributed . then as a result popular consensus is that flash games are the ass of the games industry when in reality some amazing products addictive/fun games have come from it.



>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Ryjkyj:

No, no, no... Scorched earth and worms are totally different games from Angry Birds and Crush the Castle. Yes, they use physics. So do a million other games. Yes, you shoot things, just like a hundred million other games. But Westy's right. Angry Birds and Crush the Castle are set up in almost exactly the same way. Total ripoff. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
The target being physics-based (cages, boards, bricks falling and breaking things below it) is different, but the physics-based shooting is the same. Angle, power, type of ammo, possible interference of map structures; some games made you consider wind strength and direction. That's the core of the game (for me), and I've seen it hundreds... well, lots of times.

We may be talking about two slightly different things. I'm addressing the gameplay aspect, and I think you and Westy are talking more about IP copycatting. Like if RoTT had large floating pumpkins that shot fireballs similar to Doom's Cacodemons. The catapults in Crush the Castle are different than the slingshots in Angry Birds, but the targets are set up the same. I can see why that part looks like a rip-off.

>> ^Ryjkyj:



No, no, no... Scorched earth and worms are totally different games from Angry Birds and Crush the Castle. Yes, they use physics. So do a million other games. Yes, you shoot things, just like a hundred million other games. But Westy's right. Angry Birds and Crush the Castle are set up in almost exactly the same way. Total ripoff. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
The target being physics-based (cages, boards, bricks falling and breaking things below it) is different, but the physics-based shooting is the same. Angle, power, type of ammo, possible interference of map structures; some games made you consider wind strength and direction. That's the core of the game (for me), and I've seen it hundreds... well, lots of times.



We may be talking about two slightly different things. I'm addressing the gameplay aspect, and I think you and Westy are talking more about IP copycatting. Like if RoTT had large floating pumpkins that shot fireballs similar to Doom's Cacodemons. The catapults in Crush the Castle are different than the slingshots in Angry Birds, but the targets are set up the same. I can see why that part looks like a rip-off.

I really didn't see anyone being endangered...

Now, the 500 16-year-olds that might try to copycat this, sure...

Hopefully it doesn't start too much of a copycat trend. Mobs rule... pretty much anything they want to.

Too bad society doesn't realize often enough the same principle can be applied to do good as well.

This is his risk to take and his alone.


I don't think he's doing something wrong - as you say, it's his choice, and it's not likely he's going to land on someone and kill them too. I'm OK with him taking a risk, and this specific person seems to have a good sense of the risks involved.

Again, what I don't like is this activity (climbing without being safety equipment) being promoted as the way to be a great climber. Whether he (the kid) is trying to inspire copycats or not, having a show about him is going to promote this practice, and further the dangerous idea that this is "the next level" (or something) that climbers should aim for. To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to make a show like this or that they should be liable or something - I'm just saying I don't like it because it could have dangerous consequences, and to the extent this practice is promoted we'll see more dead climbers. There are a lot of people who climb, and if the idea gets established that "no ropes" is the cool way to go, people will be more likely to try it.

More people die in their kitchens each year. We accept that. Accidents happen.


Many more people die of heart attacks than AIDS, so why use a condom? This is specious.

But yes, you're right, accidents happen. And when they happen while you're mountain climbing, you're very glad if you've followed reasonable safety practice and you're tied to something (so it's a painful tug instead of certain death). Obviously rock climbing is never going to be perfectly safe (or even "very safe") - but companies like "North Face" (who are tied to this video) should, I think, be promoting the simple practices and equipment that make it significantly safer.

Again, I'm not trying to censor or something, and I think that - for example - Jackass is as harmless as America's Funniest Home Videos. But for an activity like climbing, people aren't always great at assessing risks and are very likely to take cues from "how the pros do it" - and are likely to feel pressure to "up their game" in doing the things other climbers do. Thus I think that no ropes climbing is a dangerous idea to promote.

>> ^jmzero:

I don't like this. I don't like that this kind of behavior is rewarded with attention or seen as elite. This isn't the "top level" of rock/mountain climbing - it is an offshoot.
The danger isn't vague theoretic risk, it's very real and people die every year in predictable, preventable falls (that often get labelled "freak accident" or something only out of respect for the dead).
If you want to be an elite climber, then take harder routes or race/time-trial with proper safety equipment. I'd hate to think that young climbers might feel like this is the "next step" in their progress. It isn't. You can be the best climber without taking this kind of risk. This kid's "per trip survival chance" is probably quite high, but odds often catch up with you if you persist in dangerous behavior (ropes or not, but your odds are better with appropriate equipment). Sometimes you get too confident and make a mistake. Sometimes you don't make a mistake, and you get wiped out by something out of your control.
The climbers I know respect these people, but not what they do. I feel the same.


More people die in their kitchens each year. We accept that. Accidents happen. There is never going to be a lot of people doing this. I don't see him trying to inspire copycats. This is his risk to take and his alone.

In an age where you can't do anything without a fucking risk assessment I applaud this man. He proves that humans can do amazing things.

Its not a lack of police to fight drug cartels which is the cause of the violence. That analysis is hollow. You are leaving out the devastating consequences of NAFTA and imperialism on these countries.

Poverty and unemployment have only worsened as a result of subsidies going towards big agrobussiness instead of local farmers. This is what leads to crime. Its a reaction by the working class getting even more fucked. When you can't get any $ by growing corn and instead have the chance to make $ selling drugs, yeah, you do it.

It isn't a coincidence that the majority of immigrants come from countries that have had dictators and death squads with the support of the US. Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico. Destroyed economies create migrants which are CHEAP LABOR. Add to this the criminalization of immigrants with AZ's SB1070 and GA's copycat HB87. The AZ bill was pretty much written by Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison corporation which gets $200 per bed a night.

Its all part of the imperative of profit, the inherent violence of capitalism, duh
----
Additional reading:

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/10/28/prison-and-profits-the-politics-of-az%E2%80%99s-sb1070-bill-revealed/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/25/harvest_of_empire_new_book_exposes
"And then there's this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

"The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties."

The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America's adventures overseas - from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties....As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that 'ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists." ("CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders", Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

"ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe....""


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18877

I know I'm just echoing what everyone else has said... but I'm sick to death of these shitty copycat-of-copycat war games. Why does anyone feel the need to buy the same game over and over again? And this looks nothing like what a Battlefield game should.

Ahh, I remember this show as a young boy in Belarus. The copycat American show is bad like Polish vodka.

I'm getting kind of tired of this. I was hoping Wikileaks wouldn't be the end of this leaking idea but the beginning...maybe have some copycats out there start up their owns sites about leaking very specific things. I'm getting sick of hearing about Julian Assange though...I kinda wish Wikileaks would drop him so he wouldn't be such a silly distraction anymore.

Someone get all the former wikileaks employees together and make another leak website please...create more and more, they can't be combated.

Beck has to be publicly ridiculed. My biggest fear is that we may get a nutjob liberal pull a copycat act on the "other" side, making a whole other 15% of the people in the US functionally crazy. All of a sudden we've got a nation with 30% loud, crazy people fighting each other and the sensible majority will be caught in the middle.

It may feel like we're there right now, but it could get much worse. It is truly shameful to exploit the people's fears for ratings and endorsements. This guy is a cancer on the populous of our country.

>> ^dag:
Google's recent activity is worrying. Maybe I should be alarmed by them, but I'm not. Probably because Google is built on a core of innovation instead of copycatting and lawsuits. If Microsoft was a person (and I guess it is, according to the SCOTUS) then I would say it suffers from poor self-esteem. There must be a recognition of that within the company- that they have little innovation to be proud of - and that's what drives their company ethos. Oh and this of course.>> ^Croccydile:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
I'm more worried about Google to be honest. They're starting to control too much information, spreading into every sector. They just launched a social network, will launch their own phone as well as operating system and so on... Not that M$ doesn't suck, but then again most corporations are evil. Yes, Apple too.

Speak of the devil... http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2010/02/remail-acquired-by-google.html
This is only one small company, but that is even beyond Microsoft to not only buy them, but remove the product. At least when Microsoft bought Visio they kept selling it!



I understand your concerns given Microsofts history, but at the same time you cite copycatting when you point to DR-DOS... which was well after the fact. Really that was just poor Gary Kildall trying to recoup the old glory that was CP/M since nobody else was using it by that point.

"IBM originally approached Digital Research, seeking an x86 version of CP/M. However, there were disagreements over the contract, and IBM withdrew. Instead, a deal was struck with Microsoft, who purchased another operating system, 86-DOS, from Seattle Computer Products."

Sorry Gary, you had the chance for what was the deal of the century and lost it to Microsoft who saw someone had already made a clone of CP/M, bought it, spruced it up, licensed it to IBM and made billions off a $50,000 investment. Are we really supposed to feel that bad for those who missed that boat in the 80s? Imagine how pissed the dude who sold 86-DOS must be right now.

(Sorry, just nitpicking because even though MS has been a copycat at times... you gave probably the worst example Don't worry we still love you. I would hardly say Microsoft is lacking innovation as well with all of the side projects they have been churning out lately. But I digress I am the Microsoft apologist since they are an easy target I feel the need to make a counterpoint)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Google's recent activity is worrying. Maybe I should be alarmed by them, but I'm not. Probably because Google is built on a core of innovation instead of copycatting and lawsuits. If Microsoft was a person (and I guess it is, according to the SCOTUS) then I would say it suffers from poor self-esteem. There must be a recognition of that within the company- that they have little innovation to be proud of - and that's what drives their company ethos. Oh and this of course.>> ^Croccydile:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
I'm more worried about Google to be honest. They're starting to control too much information, spreading into every sector. They just launched a social network, will launch their own phone as well as operating system and so on... Not that M$ doesn't suck, but then again most corporations are evil. Yes, Apple too.

Speak of the devil... http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2010/02/remail-acquired-by-google.html
This is only one small company, but that is even beyond Microsoft to not only buy them, but remove the product. At least when Microsoft bought Visio they kept selling it!