While the gaming community has been buzzing the past several days after a fan showcased stunning video footage and screenshots from his CryEngine Jak II HD remake, it will be disappointed to learn that its creator has no plans to turn his "pet project" into a fully fledged game.
The PS2 still took plenty of inspiration from the arcade, leading to a lot of frustration over ottsels, stunts, and, uh, hands of God.
Out of the games on that list, I've beaten:
Maximo
God of War II (but on PS3)
Jak II
Stuntman
In 2003, nobody expected a "serious" game From Naughty Dog. But that's exactly what we got with Jak II.
Because they weren't caught up in political crap and Social Engineering, because it was a different time back then, more creative. Now it's about catering to everyone's woke views
1. Everything is or can be political. Literally everything.
2. It's the game they wanted to make... In case it isn't blaringly obvious, Druckmann based The Last of Us Part II on the Israel-Palestine conflict (which was part of his childhood).
It's not about social engineering. It is about telling a compelling story for Naughty Dog. Just because older games are less overt in their depictions doesn't make it less political.
And please, spare me the conspiracy theories of "social engineering". If we go with a hyper-political game like The Last of Us Part II, the extent of social engineering that occurs are narrative elements that, based on the events of the game, you feel very strongly about. Manipulating your emotions? Yes. But that's a plot device. It's a very divisive game and people have mixed feelings about the presence of characters like Abby and Lev, missing the huge theme in the need to end the cycle of violence. Druck is a bit of a hypocrite with his recent social media activity, but the message of the game and strong narrative elements get overlooked because Ellie is gay and there's a trans character. Calling it woke because it acknowledges women can be the main character, gay people exist, and trans people exist is just ridiculous.
In a post to the PlayStation Blog made on Dec. 11, Naughty Dog president Evan Wells revealed that the company would be donating all of the profits from the Limited Run sales of its remastered Jak and Daxter games to charity.
Take THAT! EA
Take THAT! "take two"
This makes me WANT to buy games from a company! What you other guys do makes me not only hate you but not buy a game from you (which I am sure is the ONLY thing you care about).
Had to read your comment 3 times...
Should seriously be ashamed of yourself, I guess some people really don't have a heart and just think about themselves.
''Naughty Dog Donates All Profits From Jak and Daxter Limited Run Sales to Charity''
Me: Cool, bless you ^^
''LGBT Center of Los Angeles''
Why would they need charity though? I understand if they call it donation, but charity is for those who are poor not to exclusive organisations.
From the blog post:
K9 for Warriors
Child’s Play
Surfrider Foundation
LGBT Center of Los Angeles
AbleGamers
DAGERS
We’re proud to lend our support to these groups advocating and advancing important work for accessibility, environmental conservation, veterans, the LGBTQ+ community, and children’s hospitals.
It's kinda telling when you single out only one of the charities.
''It's kinda telling when you single out only one of the charities.''
I'm only referring to the issue, so that you don't waste your time reading the same list twice. It's not my issue if someone get confused for not reading the article..
Why LGBTQ+ community is classified alongside those who are in need?
I would understand veterans, they go to crazy and unjustified wars and come back damaged.
I keep hearing the impression that LGBTQ+ community are not mentally sick, so they are just like you and me. so why are they taking and accepting money from charity?
If it was called donations i wouldn't have this issue. Also it's just a question, enlighten me if my understanding is flawed..
Edit: Charity definition --> an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
Why are you assuming i'm ignorant, I did read it.. It's not answering my question. This charity money can be used for anything within this organization. LGBT Center of Los Angeles have many goals not just to treat their mentally ill members so the charity money can be used to do things like this instead of helping the needy:
From their website:
''Models of Pride is the world's largest conference for LGBTQ youth and allies, including parents and professionals. The full-day event includes more than 130 workshops, lunch, a resource fair, college fair, job fair, dinner, entertainment hour, and outdoor dance party—all free! As part of the conference, the Parent & Professional Institute at Models of Pride offers family members, educators, professionals, and all other adult supporters of LGBTQ youth an unparalleled opportunity to learn, network, and develop community with others on a similar journey. The day will include dozens of tailored workshops, discussions, resources, and exclusive programming.''
Again, this is not an institution full of needy people. These are extra privileges to the members of this organisation. For now, I'm not against the organisation or the privileges or their programs, i'm against their use of charity.
This is in no way relevant to charity ethics. if this is ok than any company/organisation can register to be part of charity if ''part'' of their members are ill.
Sorry for doing so, I did it because it is written there what they use their money for and ND decided their money is well spent there.
Thats all there is. Charity is wider than you describe it.
Ooooh ok, if the term charity is redefined in these societies. I can see what you mean ^^. Man, everything is losing its meaning and open for interpretation these days.
But that's how i perceive and use the term charity, in conventional way and that's why i had issue with this.
I'm sorry too, this is all confusing without these conversations >.<
dunno man if I look up the word charity it just says humanitarian act. soo yeah words are always up for interpretation and reimagining, sorry again for calling you ignorant, its hard to judge where a person is coming from and how they mean what they write on the internet...
Exactly. Why not donate to the SPCA, suicide hotline, Rhino foundation, Red Cross? Rhino's for instance are on the verge of extinction.
I've done some project monitoring and evaluation for Red Cross.
Overall, they are a decent organization and have actually unduly come under scrutiny with the home building after the Haiti earthquake a few years ago, but even so, knowing what I know about Red Cross/ Red Crescent, I think it is far more productive to donate the funds elsewhere. Supplies to Red Cross is fine, but funding, I would disagree.
It turns out, to them (who disagree with us), charity just means donations, to their society charity is not exclusive to the needy living things. Personally, i feel like redefining the meaning of terms like charity messed up the way we humans reason with subjects. but at least they are not confusing us anymore.. :<
You have never heard of people kicked out of their house for being LGBT? Who do you think helps them? Where do you think that money comes from?
It is like any other organization. Certain people who fall under their care need financial support one way or another. They offer their services free because those who need them can't always pay. They rely on donations.
Read my reply to SamPao.
If LGBT Center of Los Angeles is only used like this i would i agree, or If charity were directed only to these specific people you mentioned until they are treated from this specific abuse, than i can understand. But the charity money goes to finance the whole company and they use it to offer extra programs that are not related to treatment. By definition, that makes them unfit to charity since charity is mainly about the needy. Once these members are treated they become ''normal'' like you and me so why they receiving free and extra privileges/programs/stuff from charity ? If free stuff are from donations i'm ok with it (since that would be out off topic) even though it contradict their narrative that all they want is to be treated ''normal''.
"You have never heard of people kicked out of their house for being LGBT?"
I met someone who was disowned for being Gay and then his father tried to kill him. After that he needed alot of support to get through life.
It's a donation to a non profit, there are plenty of non profits that dont fit under the "charity for the needy" definition that you've set out here. I mean you could argue that Surfrider foundation and Ablegamers aren't charities in your narrow definition. You are being needlessly obtuse and focusing on only one of these non profits, why is that I wonder?
He has an agenda...I thought I worded it in a way that was impossible to get around, but hey when someone wants to make themselves look bad...
You can donate money to any individual or org.
There are plenty of charity-like orgs who have ceo's making hundreds of thousands to millions.
Ablegamers, all they want is to be normal like me and you to play games. Once you provide accessibility and remove their difficulties, they no longer need charity. Ablegamers is not a controversial topic too. Charity is to balance life not to give privileges.
Logically, the planet is needy too since we are corrupting it. So it is a form of charity to fix what is broken, to heal the planet. So It is compatible with my conventional definition of charity.
You have a different and weird definition, were you included most types of donations into charity. In my mind and heart, that interpretation/meaning just doesn't fit with the word charity and it is confusing. If a CEO is abusing charity than by definition it is no longer a valid charity even if it helps a bit because the CEO's real intention is not to help balancing life. But now i understand that your societies distorted the meaning so now I can understand how you think without me being confused. Now we can understand each other. Now we can talk logically. If i want to prove your interpretation wrong or right, all i need to do is go to the history of the word ( in both our society). Then we see who is making more sense. Who is distorting , is it me limiting the meaning of charity or these organisations abusing charity.
I have an opinion and an interest to understand these topics because I don't want to be naive, i don't want to be fooled by anyone or any organisations, so i try to understand every perspective and then adjust my opinion, my opinion and interest is not an agenda because unlike these organisations, no matter what i think about this subject i don't really have any power or even any intention to get involved in changing the situation in the ground in respect of this topic and I'm not trying to change your opinions.
I don't blame him, it would take ages to finish with just one person.
Such a shame. I can dream, though.
Where's my Jak collection?
Its funny Evans wants to play... so do I!