Ross Scott

I saw in PC Gamer a confirmation that their PC exclusive is something entirely new, so it won't be Fortnite (I really hope that one ends up being cross platform then). I consider the single player about on the level of Halo in terms of story and gameplay. I will say it had fantastic environments though. Unreal 1 was a really other-wordly experience however, it definitely paled against that. As for the music, I barely remember it, so I think that alone means it doesn't even come close to Unreal 1, which is easily one of my all-time favorite game soundtracks.

Well the thing with that is I don't want people to feel like they're second class citizens if they're not donating. I'm happy to have people watch my videos period, and only instated the donation system because people were actively asking me about it. My favorite fans aren't necessarily the ones who donate the most money, but the ones whom I think could still be watching my (new) videos 10 years from now. I'd prefer to have something where donators could get something extra, but where others don't feel too excluded.

Hey everyone, just a quick update if you're wondering why not much seems to be happening. It's mostly been being busy with getting re-situated since my move and more lately, taxes. Taxes are always an enormous pain for me due to how I get paid and where I've lived. I will be turning in no less than SEVEN forms to the IRS and State this year and it's been taking me days to try and figure it all out. I'm tempted to just mail a check for about how much money I think I owe along with a note that says "I DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO ALL OF THIS AND I CAN'T AFFORD A PERSONAL ACCOUNTANT" but I think that would just lead to me going to jail; but it wouldn't if EVERYONE did that. The whole experience has been leaving me bitter, but I've tried to stay positive by imagining the people who designed these forms and/or process them as doing a the entire time. The way the language is worded on these forms seems fitting for that kind of individual. Fun Fact: Your donations for 2011 (before taxes) come to a total of $1,639.69. I've tried to thank every donator individually for that, but a big thanks again if you've been missed. This sum will go towards the movie project once I'm finally done filling out forms. I'm still open to suggestions of extra things I can do for donators that won't eat too much into my time. The webmaster for the site has suggested adding recognition labels next to people's names in the forum, which may not be a bad idea.

I think you'll like my movie then.

I was going to reply more, but some of what you're saying jumps out at me: This is so far off base with what I'm saying, I'm not sure any explanation is useful here. If you want a real response, please re-read what I said in the past 1-2 posts and rephrase your question. I've explicitly stated multiple times this is not what I'm saying, I can't discuss this further without you understanding my stance. This would be like me saying repeatedly to you "So you think people should be allowed to do anything they want, even if they kill others?" even if you've already explained your stance to me. Again, I can't have this discussion if you're not actually reading my posts: If you still want a discussion, here's some stuff I would suggest understanding before replying: -The difference between having a social safety net and some socialized services versus communism. -The difference between someone's WANTS versus their NEEDS. Too many of the arguments I'm getting from you suggest that I'm advocating communism and I think everyone's WANTS should be provided for. These are both false and I've already tried to explain that. I'll answer this though: Two part question. Why focus on the effects? This is such a fundamental thing for me, I think it would be better if you answer it yourself. If a drunk driver accidentally kills 3 people, but he honestly didn't MEAN to, why do we still lock him up? On the flipside, if someone is very mean, and secretly wishes to murder people, but has never actually harmed anyone, why do we let him free? I feel like if you answer that, you also answer why I focus on effects rather than ideology. As for your second question, I feel the ideology is probably well meaning for most people who advocate it, but the effects mean a lot less people don't get helped. A nice real-world example: When you were a kid, have you ever gone trick or treating to a neighbor where somebody has a basket of candy out that says "take one only" that is completely empty? The neighbor INTENDED to have all trick or treaters receive candy, but realistically there's usually somebody who is greedy and takes it all for himself, thus all the other trick or treaters get shafted than if he had actually handed it out himself. The parallel here isn't 100% analogous, but the mindset is. As well-meaning as the neighbor was, the reality was his plan didn't work as he intended. I don't think it is unless you can provide me evidence that private charity has raised more money to help people than the government since it instituted welfare. I made a case a few pages back that despite large tax cuts, private charity spending hasn't changed substantially since 2000, even though taxation has. In other words, there's evidence on the side I'm arguing. If this really is a debatable issue, you should have counter-evidence. And to be very clear, I'm NOT arguing that private charities don't help; I'm arguing that on the whole, they don't raise nearly as many resources as government welfare does, regardless of the amount (or lack of) taxation. I'm not unreasonable. If there was boatloads of evidence to suggest that many more people would receive help under a system with no government intervention than with it, I'd probably be in favor of that, but I'm really not aware of any evidence like that.

I see piracy as necessary in cases of obscure stuff. There are dozens of games and soundtracks out there that you cannot even buy a copy of anymore, and sometimes the original company doesn't exist. Who's the mythical person you should be paying money to in those cases? More often than not the original developers would be happy for you to obtain a copy of the game any way you can when it's shelf life has expired. Even what's now considered abandonware, a lot of it wouldn't be runnable today if it wasn't for cracks made for copy protection of the time. In the case of a rare physical item, someone else would have to be deprived in order for you to enjoy it, but that's not the case with a digital medium.

I'm in Blacksburg, Virginia right now for people that are wondering. I didn't know they were making movies actually. Looks like my budget is about 1/250th of the AVGN's, but I intend to make my movie be the best thing I've ever produced. No, just some bureacratic stuff, it should be up in a few days.

CIVIL PROTECTION: Well as some of you may have guessed, yesterday's video was not actually a new game engine. It was the work of Michael Breazzeal, who has done other game-related animations. He contacted me last year about a Freeman's Mind animation he made and offered to help with the videos. I thought this style of animation would be good for an idea that had some sort of time pressure on it, since this is much faster than animating in 3D. All the animation for this was done in under a week, though he was working feverishly on it during that time. Because of the time constraints, he wanted me to emphasize that this is not his best work and is capable of better quality. This was originally meant to be a triple feature, though one of the episode ideas was scrapped to make sure everything came out on time. I have dozens of ideas for CP in my head, these were two I thought work work well with this animated style. "Reception" was just a quick joke one that I thought wouldn't lose anything by not being rendered in 3D. "Lift" was one that due to other projects I have planned would likely have been years before I got around to it. While some of "Lift" would be possible in the Source engine, doing something like that without having the lighting being screwed up would have required a LOT of tricks and may not have been possible in Source. This double feature was also another reminder as to why I try to avoid deadlines. While the animation work was done well ahead of schedule, the sound editing was not and a lot of it ended up being done at the last minute by a backup backup sound editor and myself. I had no less than four people bail on me during the duration of this episode and it was really down the to wire getting it in on time. Also while his name isn't in the credits, "Chuck the 2nd" gets an honorable mention for volume balancing work that just didn't happen in time because the pipeline was so jammed up. Finally, working on this and not having to do ANY of the animation work was kind of intoxicating. I love writing and directing videos, but animation work is usually an exercise is misery for me. While I do appreciate the cinematic feel that 3D graphics can provide, I could see doing more animation projects, so long as I don't have to be the one animating it. Any ideas that I feel like won't massively benefit from being done in 3D or else require too many resources might get transferred to animation projects instead, provided people will be able to animate it. I prefer the look of 3D graphics, however, I would much rather have more of my ideas get out in a different medium than not at all. NEW ENGINE / MOVIE PROJECT: Progress on the movie project is going slowly, but is very encouraging. I am definitely seeing benefits of allowing myself more time to write and develop the script, I think the eventual payoff on this will be enormous. I'm taking every effort to make sure this script is extremely fine tuned and is some of the best material I can come up with, a practice I think even Hollywood doesn't exercise most of the time. As for the engine, I actually did research all the engines mentioned in yesterday's post. Based on my research, I've decided to transition to the Unreal 3 engine for multiple reasons: -It appears to be far less buggy since when it was launched, and I think likely has much more functionality than Source at this point. -I've seen machinima from other games successfully ported over to it -It seems to have the most overall community support, so I won't be on my own when I have problems -Despite trends in the industry, it doesn't actually HAVE to have desaturated color, the whole screen in a tinted color, and excessive bloom everywhere. It is capable of very good graphics, so much so that I don't see obvious advantages of other engines like Crytech or Unigine. I am still learning the engine however, which will take me time. If you wish to help with the movie project, the #1 thing I want to focus on at this phase is being able to have a dozen or two rigged human models, capable of lip sync and facial expressions. I think it's unrealistic to do this all from scratch and variations to some sort of template model would be best for this. I've also heard Poser or Daz Studio may be well equipped for this job. If you have experience creating or modifying faces of 3D models and wish to help on this project, please contact me. FREEMAN'S MIND: More Freeman's Mind is coming, the next episode is about a quarter done. I actually was planning to have another video done for March, but I ended up moving again (I don't want to be a nomad even though I seem to live that way), which consumed a lot of my time, also I was trying to ensure the April Fool's Day video got done in time. Progress will resume on it very soon. - - - ADHD version: Ross is working on more videos.

Be sure to check out the donation page if you liked the video!

Download 640x480 MKV (11MB) Hey everyone, I have not one, but TWO new Civil Protection episodes! For those just tuning in, the last Civil Protection episode left me so frustrated with the Source engine that I said I wasn't going to make another episode on it. Well I meant it! I looked at the Unreal 3 Engine, Crytech 3 engine, Unigine, iClone, but finally decided on the Smackdown Engine by Funkdoobiest Software. All future videos here will be made using it. The Smackdown engine has been nothing short of incredible, as I'm sure you'll see in the videos. I've been able to do work on it that may not have even been possible on the Source engine due to how it handles lighting and object manipulation. With this engine, episodes have been produced in days that would have taken me months in the past. Because of my switch to it, I'm so far ahead of schedule on my movie project that I had time to make some shorter CP episodes. Enjoy!

The only two ways I know of to make oil are either to convert it from coal (which is already the #1 source for electricity) or else use bio-fuels as a substitute the probably uses of oil (fuel, some chemical properties). I'm generally not so keen on biofuels just because that's land that's not being used to grow food instead. Yes, though we DON'T have decades left of oil at our current production rate. Almost all research I've read on that predicts we have less than a decade of that, my bet is on 2-3 years.

Well the hard copy comes with some swag and a soundtrack CD, though my favorite tracks weren't on that, I had to extract it from the game. The in-game is at a very high bitrate though, so won't lose much by going digital.

I had a chance to play this game as I can be a fan of the graphic adventure genre. It may be destined for the "obscure" section, but it has appeared on store shelves for now. I'd say this game is a cross between the show Captain Planet and the movie 12 Monkeys, leaning more towards Captain Planet. The target audience kind of confused me, I'd guess it's maybe teens. On one hand it addressed serious adult subjects, like a man undergoing psychological therapy and trying to cope in his retirement for regrets he's had regarding his family, but on the other hand the dialogue would often be presented in a very cliched way, like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon. The game is also extremely preachy and is likely to alienate people because of that. Graphics: Generally excellent, going with a hand-animated style. Only a 4x3 aspect ratio, but it looks good. Sound: Good, I even ripped some of the music from the game that wasn't on the official soundtrack. Gameplay: Pretty good (if you like graphic adventure games). I only had one part I needed to use a hint on. Ending: (small spoiler) Pretty bad. While the length of it is good, the ending is about the most unsatisfying one I could imagine coming up with. Very anti-climatic and should piss off both people wanting a happy ending and those wanting a tragic one. Anyway, I'd say this is a niche game with great production value, but appealing to a very small audience. I think it has a lot of avoidable flaws, but I am a little biased in its favor that they had the guts to release something this niche, and I'm generally interested in stuff related to the world going to hell.

Yes, I can blame them. Partially for reasons you wouldn't agree with, but some I think you might. They're not just making outlandish claims, but taking outlandish action with bills like these. Paying congress millions to make a bill that will give censoring power over the internet is overstepping authority. If this had passed, I could have users (or worse yet, coordinated spambots) posting illegal software links, then my site automatically gets cut off and I don't have the kind of resources to fight it legally in court. This may sound implausible, but given the RIAA's history, I don't think it is. I think they would automate many takedowns based on crawlers looking for specific terminology and shut down sites en masse. Again, this is the same organization that has filed charges against a grandmother with no computer for downloading gangsta rap, and against a 12 year old girl for downloading "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands." I think they're trying to fight reality. I've seen many record and video stores go out of business in the town I grew up in. Some of them I liked and wish were still around, but at the same time, I don't think Congress should pass laws banning digital distribution of media so they can stay in business. Just like how using email now will result in SOME spam, putting out any sort of popular digital content inevitably results in SOME piracy. It's an unfortunately reality of digital distribution and legislation like this certainly won't curtail it much at all. You've mentioned before that you're a big believer in personal freedom and are against force. Why should the freedom of everyone who is running a legitimate site be put at risk or taken away by force because of an attempt to curtail piracy? Furthermore, what would your attitude be if this bill magically worked, but came at the cost of many legitimate sites suffering collateral damage? I'm wondering where the dividing line is for you, since I think attempts like this may create conflicting values for you. If someone steals my bike, I don't have the right to search everyone's house on my block looking for it, or evict them from my neighborhood on suspicion. So where is the dividing line for you between protecting intellectual property v. infringing individual privacy and/or carrying a risk of suppressing legitimate sites?

Well it sounds like you're making a case more for not subcontracting it, which I would agree with. If you kept it as a nonprofit government organization this would be less of an issue. I mean how many cases of widespread embezzling and corruption do you hear about from public waterworks companies or sewage treatment facilities? Not saying it's impossible, but it's hardly a gold mine. As for teaching people practical skills, I would consider that another good thing for society to provide to its citizens. On the flipside though, I wouldn't expect an 80 year old or quadriplegic to necessarily be fixing their own plumbing.

I never saw that happen, besides I'm sure it would be easy to code into the map for them not to follow you into specific areas. It really was incredible though. I remember loving to get them up on a balcony, lay down a smoke grenade, then start shooting at the CTs out in the open, using the hostages as human shields. I also remember our team fighting really hard in cs_militia as CT, only to come into the house and find all the hostages gone because the T's moved them all to the bathroom instead and ambushed us at the normal hostage pickup point. You could move the hostages until Beta 9 or 1.0 I believe, it's too bad they took that out.

I was a fan of CS beta and actually I was disappointed that CS 1.0 took away features. In CS beta 7.1, you could move the hostages as a terrorist, some maps, like cs_siege had drivable vehicles, and you had official assassination gameplay maps. Also I don't know if it was ever something officially planned, but I would have loved the idea of using human shields as implied in the menus screen: I was hoping a new CS might add some more dimensions and features to the game that existed back in beta, but it's not looking that way. I guess the question is what does CS:GO offer over older versions? Even if you didn't like the gameplay as much, CS:S clearly had better graphics than CS, though with the art direction of CS:GO that's more debatable.

I checked the definition of wealth in the dictionary: "abundance of valuable material possessions or resources" Having two kidneys is not an abundance, it's normal. Same for two lungs and two eyes. Having less than two is considered a deficiency, even if you can survive with that. Moreover, I would argue that they're your own being rather than a possession you acquired through your efforts or given to you by others. I think you're wrong here and are also sidestepping the point: don't ALL those people in those scenarios NEED FOOD AND WATER? Is making sure they can have FOOD AND WATER a desirable goal despite their other issues? I picked those because I think those needs in particular are pretty objective. People need that to survive, period. Something like telephone access is much more subjective and is debatable as to whether it's an actual need in modern society. You can absolutely draw a line. You draw the line between needs and wants. Needs are things you require to survive. Wants are things you would like to have, but are not essential to your survival. I would extend the bracket further to include things that you may not literally NEED, but the vast majority of society agrees everyone should have. An example of this would be clothes. You don't NEED clothes in the summer, but almost everyone would like other people to HAVE them (whether they wear them or not). We can leave that out of the conversation and focus strictly on needs if you want, for the sake of simplicity. It's all a spectrum to me. What you're describing in some of the scenarios aren't needs, but wants or desires. The first two I think are wants, not needs. That's too bad for the civil war guy and the teenager. They'll have to find another way to fulfill their wants, like getting a job or support from friends and family, or else learn to live with less. Now the lady with broken plumbing, that's a problem. Water is a need to survive and having basic hygiene is important for health. But does she really need money for this? Wouldn't having a service that's already funded and paid for by taxes that will repair her plumbing for her be as effective AND ensure the money isn't spent for other purposes? For the guy who goes to work with his car, strictly speaking, if he had a social safety net, he wouldn't NEED his job to survive. However, public transportation is general considered a societal good for societies that can afford it. But rather than fix his car (which is arguably a luxury), society could invest in trams that could take him to his job instead, benefiting everyone instead of just him. Anyway, I don't think MONEY should be given to any of the people in your scenarios. I think they should be provided with what they NEED and the people who do the actual providing for them (plumbers, construction workers, etc.) should get the tax money instead. I don't understand what you're saying either. A person who was working would not only receive their income, but would also have the benefits of the social system if they wanted them. So even if you're earning 500k a year, you could still receive government MREs for dinner instead of having your own food from a grocery or restaurant, though I would guess most wouldn't want to. In the system I'm describing, people who worked would always be better off financially than people who didn't (unless they had inherited wealth or retired or something). By "property threatened" I'll interpret that as a "tax" in which case, yes, they would still be obligated to pay that whether they participated in the services or not. This comes down to the effects rather than the ideology again. If it was optional for everyone, then the vast majority of people would stop paying for the services once they hit middle class or above. The poor would be too poor to contribute to the system, so they only people left would be only the most benevolent people at a certain income level or higher. Relying purely on charity would leave a lot more people starving or homeless than making this mandatory. As for the difference between this and the Mafia, there are two practical differences and one ideological one. The practical difference would be that this would provide MANY more services than the Mafia would, and there would be no threats of violence or death for anyone refusing to pay. The ideological difference is the Mafia's end goal is to acquire wealth for their organization and pretty much keep it or spend it whatever they want. The goal is selfish and benefits a very small number of people at the cost of many. The goal of this would be to acquire wealth and then use it in order to provide a better infrastructure to all its citizens. It would also be at the cost of many, but it would benefit everyone to varying degrees. I can't defend the guy's logic in the cracked.com article, you're absolutely right in some areas, though I will point out a couple things: No, it implies that others do not work hard or are less deserving for their work because they get paid less. This is basically a form of arrogance, which is generally an undesirable trait. Yes, but it's also implying that people who aren't rich aren't producing as much value or aren't working as hard, which is nuts. The amount of money you earn is not necessarily a reflection of your value to society or other people. Of course you can work hard at something that is meaningless, but you can also work hard at something that's extremely valuable, but not in direct economic terms. If you're a cop and you bust your ass to keep down violent crime in you region, your value is immeasurable. You could be indirectly raising real estate prices, making the community more attractive for productive people wanting to move in, preventing possible violent attacks, destruction, murders, etc. For your community, you could be incredibly valuable. However, you could easily be paid far less than someone who works as a professional gambler getting tips on horses. If you look at income as the only metric, it really misrepresents who the most overall valuable people are to society functioning well. I think what he's saying is we don't like people who acquire lots of power (political, financial, or otherwise) then act irresponsibly with it. As for businesses, there are good ones and bad ones. I think he's pointing to them in particular because it's often more profitable to run a business in a way that accomplishes less good for the workers (paying lower wages, outsourcing to regions with laxer labor laws, etc.). If you're large enough to be part of a cartel or monopoly, it can be at less good for the consumers as well by successfully limiting competition. Well going back to the room cleaning example, he's saying cleaning the room wasn't a punishment, it was because mom wanted an orderly house and your room was part of it. The government (in theory at least) wants a functioning society and you are part of it. The taxes aren't a punishment, but a duty. Now I can understand if you object to how the tax money is being used because you the government isn't doing its job properly, but to be opposed to taxes entirely means the safety net is ENTIRELY dependent on charity, which from our earlier posts I tried to make a case that it isn't as effective by itself as it is in combination with government support. Also how does the accumulation of wealth of someone translate to society working? You mentioned Argentina, that has some very wealthy people in it, though I wouldn't consider its society to be in the best shape.

Yeah, sounds like I'm going to live an eventful life. And I'm not leaving my fate to democracy, I just wanted to see if there was an obvious preference about what I should be focusing on besides the videos. If 70% of the results came back voting for subtitles, that would take the next priority. I still plan to get everything on the list done, it's just a matter of when.

You're right about that: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/06/counter-strike-global-offensive-to-arrive-this-summer-cross-platform-play-dropped/

No, someone's money is not EQUALLY their property as their kidney. You were born with your kidneys, you were not born with your money. Your money is paper or numbers on a computer that society has deemed to have worth that you've managed to acquire in your life somehow. Removing someone's kidney forcibly is pretty much universally seen as barbaric. I can't really explain it much better than that. It's in the same field as cannibalism for the vast majority of people. Removing of someone's money is highly situational. If removal of this money means a person won't be able to provide for themselves or their family and will die, most people will see that as barbaric also. If it means I won't be able to buy a new car this year, then most will see that as more of a limitation rather than barbarism. I think a lot of our disagreement comes down to you not distinguishing the loss of property for someone who has almost nothing, and someone who has plenty. To me this makes a tremendous difference. It's actually not about money in my eyes, it's about what your money REPRESENTS. For the low income person, the money represents everything they need to survive, and meager accommodations at that. Taking away some of that can be absolutely devastating for the individual. For a wealthy person, it can represent a lavish lifestyle, indulgences, enterprise opportunities to become more wealthy. I can't envision many scenarios where taking away some of that is as devastating as it is to the low income. Really, I see any system that marginalizes the number of people being able to survive at the same time it rewards people who already have more property than the vast majority of people in history as either immoral and / or flawed, regardless of the ideology behind it. Well you say "period", but that's not what I'm advocating. This is why I said "within limits." Yes, the majority would agree that losing 30% of your taxes when you earn 20k is more devastating than losing 30% of your taxes when you earn 20 million, even if the individual disagrees. However, the individual still gets to decide what to do with his remaining 70%, not the majority. So this isn't a "period" situation. I thought we addressed this? Needs have SOME objective standards. Food and water are the easiest objective ones. Those are objective needs. Everyone needs them to survive, period. While we can say things like health care are less objective, let's not complicate this. How are food and water not an objective standard for someone's needs? I mean what are you saying, that "needs" are less objective than "greatness"? Who's the greater person, a teacher living at borderline poverty who has helped thousands of students, or a hedge funds manager who hoards his money and doesn't contribute to any cause? Or who's greater, a star football player who makes millions, or someone making 5 figures who cures a disease? As for incompetence being rewarded, in a utilitarian good, EVERYONE is rewarded with having a social safety net that ALLOWS a person the potential to be great. Incompetent people who don't contribute anything would actually be worse off than anyone else, since they would receive the bare minimum of necessities. However, they WOULD receive the BARE MINIMUM, not less than that, putting them at risk to die or suffer. Well I typed a lot more than I meant to. While some of his logic isn't completely consistent, I recommend this article: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/ He argues for both sides and it's a more humorous take on the whole situation. His explanation of parts #5, #3, and #2 apply to this discussion especially.

I got around to watching this, it sounds like a nightmare there. It makes American corruption look almost tame by comparison, though I think we may be heading towards the same destination but at a slower pace.