Messages

DebkaFile's full analysis.

Here's a political analysis I have read:

The Iraqi war is very unpopular among the Spanish population. In fact, George 'Jorge' Bush is one of the most widely disliked people in Iberia. Seeing as Aznar was the man who sent Spanish troops to Iraq, the governing pary PP is widely associated with this war. If indeed it is Al-Qaeda behind the attacks, then the anti-war feelings will become stronger, and the PP's electoral campaign will be harmed.

Edit: Top reason not to negotiate (under their terms) with terrorists: Oslo 1993.

From DebkaFile:

Al Qaeda claims Spain bombing in letter reaching London-based al Kuds. Spanish official earlier reported Arabic tape with Koran verses found in van packed with explosives near Madrid.

As the toll of the Madrid rail attacks climbs rapidly to 190 dead, 1,200 injured, terror experts note their appalling scale dwarfs any previous ETA assaults. They suggest the hand of al Qaeda or collaboration between the Islamist group and Basque terrorists behind the bombings. A senior Washington security official sees definite al Qaeda hallmarks. No group has claimed responsibility.

Working on it, I already downloaded the theme.

Thank you, DG, I guess I underrated ETA's support. 200,000 is still far from the numbers that surround such organizations as Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda, but it is indeed more than I first believed. I wonder if on Sunday (day of the elections) we shall see such figures again.

Aussie, keep strong.

Well, please do explain this figure.

It not absurd -- it's 10% who support the violence, and I got that from CNN's website.

Did you want me to be more specific on how I arrived at that figure?

If you wish.

Gosh, we are editing a lot, and there are two topics. It's just too hard to follow what is going on.

You can't look at things like this simply.

True enough.

I wouldn't say the ETA don't have the support. Roughly 10% of Basques support them, which is still pretty huge.

This number seems a bit absurd to me. Do these 10% support terrorist attacks or just the independant claims of the Basques?

LasNaranjas:
As with everything, there are plenty of exceptions. I am well aware that my case is no more than a speculation, and that it is possibly 100% false. Yet, from my little life experience and wisdom, I can say that terrorist attacks are more political tools than anything else, and where politics are involved, everything is a lot more complex than what it seems.

DG, on the other thread (bah, what a mess):

Barcik: It's inevitable that something like this will add fuel to the "War on Terror" spin, so it's no use saying to fuck all discussion on the subject -- It's still an important subject.

DG, I didn't mean it's not important. I just meant "put it aside for a second [while reading my post], and regard the matter simply. [with out all the high-politics]"

Here we go.

ETA are small-time. They have neither the support, nor the resources to pull of something of such magnitude. Since 2003, there were 'just' 3 victims to terrorist attacks by ETA. Furthermore, these attacks have plenty of Al-Qaeda's characteristics: numerous simultaneous attacks and a very crowded target. Also, don't forget Spain was the United States' and the United Kingdom's ally against Iraq. And one more important factor - the elections in Spain are to be held on Sunday. What can convey the message of "Aznar is weak" better? The Basques could have been the executioners, but it is likely that a bigger fish was pulling the strings. This is how terror works.

Common, hate me, I'm waiting for it.

Explosions hit three Madrid commuter trains leaving 131 dead and 400 wounded (and these are just the initial numbers). Fuck all the inevitable discussions that will follow about the US, the war in Iraq, Bush, Israel, Saddam and Bin-Laden. Put it aside and look at the numbers. 131 innocent people who were just going along with their daily schedule were murdered. If we cannot offer people the most basic protection, what good are we?

Explosions hit three Madrid commuter trains leaving 131 dead and 400 wounded (and these are just the initial numbers). Fuck all the inevitable discussions that will follow about the US, the war in Iraq, Bush, Israel, Saddam and Bin-Laden. Put it aside and look at the numbers. 131 innocent people who were just going along with their daily schedule were murdered. If we cannot offer people the most basic protection, what good are we?

Edit: Sorry, me and Nacho posted roughly at the same time.

[To put it as bluntly as I can: I cannot criticize a company's decision to act according to what they deem right.]

To put it as bluntly as I can: I cannot criticize a company's decision to act according to what they deem right.

I cannot continue this conversation, because I find the above statement, which is your entire point, so ludicrous that there's no way for me to argue it without just saying "I think that's completely wrong."  Maybe YOU can't criticize a company's decision even if they have no reason for it, but I sure can.

The problem with your line of arguments is that you are sure you are right on a subject where every prediction is a guess.

[To put it as bluntly as I can: I cannot criticize a company's decision to act according to what they deem right.]

So you think the sales department should have the final say in anything, because anything contradicting what they say is "doing the exact opposite" and should not be considered, even if that sales department has a terrible, terrible track record and can't even justify their own decisions?  What?  Do you have a vested interest in this?  Are you planning on working for a sales department later in life?

What I am saying is that the sales department isn't there for the company to do the opposite of what it says. If the sales department has a history of bad decisions, then I agree with you - it needs a change of staff. But if the manager decides to trust them, then he should, in most cases, listen to them.

I still don't understand why you can't just admit that sometimes companies do stupid things without sufficient reason.  History has proven this countless times.  We often look back at failed companies and say things like "Man, they REALLY shouldn't have made that completely ridiculous decision."  We can ALSO, at DIFFERENT times, say things like "That was a great decision, too bad the odds were stacked against them."  This, however, is almost certainly not a case of the second situation.

Says who I won't admit companies don't do stupid things? Of course they do. I didn't even say that (although I asume it to highly possible) Sam & Max 2 would be a flop. I am just protecting a company's right to act according to its market evaluation.

A LucasArts game has to be a hit?  So... Gladius: hit?  I wouldn't say so.  Armed and Dangerous: hit?  Ha, ha.  RTX: Red Rock: Hit?  BWA, HA HA HA HA HA!  Those are all examples just from the past few months.  Coincidentally (or possibly not coincidentally at all), the general concensus of quality from the gaming public on those games is pretty much in line with how well they sold.  Considering how highly everybody who actually was involved with or was shown Sam and Max 2 thought of the game, it easily had the potential to outsell any of those games.  By the way, the sales of RTX were in the low thousands.  Yes, it sold a couple thousand copies, that's it.  And LucasArts' sales department pushed it out the door.  Pardon me if I do have even the SLIGHTEST bit of respect for the scumbags in that department, who couldn't analyze gaming trends if faced with the threat of a rabid bunny biting off their balls.

"A Lucasarts product has to be a hit" means that for a Lucasarts product to be regarded a success, being a hit among 40-to-60 years old gypsies in Europe (no offense intended) isn't enough, it has to sell well in all target markets. Yes, Lucasarts have released their share of failures of the years. And unfortunately, quality isn't all that matters, as shows the sad case of Grim Fandango (and thank you, whatever boss of Lucasarts  who decided to release it).

Basically, the vibe I'm getting from your post is "If someone makes a decision, the verdict is automatically acceptable, even if they don't have any good reason."  I mean, you're saying (quote) "Whether their reasons to do so are valid or not is irrelevent."  Why is that irrelevant?  You think we shouldn't have standards of accountability?  I feel kind of bad for you, because with that kind of attitude people are just going to walk all over you in life.  Of course, this is just a game, but your overall attitude is somewhat worrying.

I am saying that beyond the point where a decision is takes, the reasons become irrelevant. For their own reasons, Lucasarts has decided Sam & Max 2 won't sell well. I am positive they believe they are right, and I see no reason why their evaluation weighs less then that of the public, despite their poor reputation. Thus, they should act according to their decision.

To put it as bluntly as I can: I cannot criticize a company's decision to act according to what they deem right.

And what exactly is the cause of this bizarre faith in LucasArts' predictions?  In the last several years, LucasArts has had an utterly TERRIBLE track record of judging which games are worth releasing, so to assume they'd know how this one would have sold is pretty silly.

In business, any prediction is no more then a guess. Even if they did make some mistakes, it is not a sufficient reason to do the exact opposite of what the sales department advices to do. The people in the head positions can examine their advice more carefully, ask externel bodies to re-eveluate the market, fire all of the people in that department, but it isn't there just for the fun of it. These are the people the president, or whoever, hired, and ultimately, he should either trust them or sack them.

I don't expect you to keep up on external forums, but gamers all over big mainstream (ie, non-adventure) gaming sites like GameSpot, Shack News, Blues News, and even non-gaming sites like Slashdot have been posting thousands of angry messages. These are not the hardcore adventurers, these are the guys you claim would "prefer the latest version of this or that First-Person Shooter." And even if those guys DO prefer a FPS game, that doesn't mean they can't enjoy or purchase an adventure game. I mean, I prefer Grim Fandango to the original Sam and Max, but that doesn't mean I didn't absolutely love the latter.

I am quite aware of the buzz surrounding this game. I've even seen Sam & Max 2 high on the list of the Readers' Most Expected Games. However, despite what it may look like, this is still the minority out there that is complaining. Otherwise, this genre would be prospering now.

And while it may be true that MOST adventure games don't end up being huge sellers, games like The Longest Journey and Syberia have provided enormous amounts of revenue to their publishers and those were games with no pre-existing fanbase.

The key word here is missing - relatively. Both of this games were created on a low-budget and aimed at a limited market. Thus, they sold well relatively to the expenses. But a project such as Sam & Max 2 is in a league of its own. It's created by a big firm such as Lucasarts on a much bigger budget, and they cannot be satisfied by decent sales in the European market. A Lucasarts product has to be a hit. For some reason, they thought it wouldn't be, and this is the main point here. I, you, Steve Purcell or anybody else can't possibly know how the game would have fared on the market. Lucasarts decided it would do badly, and so it is fully legitimate to cancel the project. Whether their reasons to do so are valid or not is irrelevent. They made a decision, and they acted according to it. I could not have expected them to do otherwise.

No, the euphoria surrounding any big-name adventure game that comes out these days would not be enough for the game to sell well.

So why in the blue hell did they even start making it in the first place? As someone else mentionned, there's not that much difference in today's market as compared to whenever they likely started making the game in the first place.

Here's a quote of my own:

If it so, then why did they even begin this project? Beats me. Bad evaluation perhaps. Change of people in head positions. A sudden urge to create an adventure game that has since faded. I don't know, and anyway it is irrelevant. Creating adventure games isn't a good business decision, and it is all that matters. Sad, but true.

The reason we're all mad at LucasArts is that they cancelled a game that not only us but the worldwide gaming press was going mad with anticipation for. Tons of even casual gamers were waiting for this game. And LucasArts didn't think it would sell.

I believe that if it was such as sure hit, then Lucasarts would have never cancelled it. No, the euphoria surrounding any big-name adventure game that comes out these days would not be enough for the game to sell well. Even if nostalgic reviewers would give it 90s and As, most 'casual' gamers would still prefer the latest version of this or that First-Person Shooter. I am assuring you that if Lucasarts think the game wouln't have sold, they have a damn good reason.

I am short on time, and so I haven't read all the replies here. Sorry if I repeat something that was said before.

I think it is silly to be angry with Lucasarts. After all, it is a commercial company, with one main interest - profit. If the sales department decided Sam & Max 2 won't sell, and I am sure they had their reasons, then there is no reason for the company to continue funding the project for the sake of nostalgia alone.
If it so, then why did they even begin this project? Beats me. Bad evaluation perhaps. Change of people in head positions. A sudden urge to create an adventure game that has since faded. I don't know, and anyway it is irrelevant. Creating adventure games isn't a good business decision, and it is all that matters. Sad, but true.

Kinda sad how all the big important categories went according to plan, with no suprsing. It's a pity Murray or Depp couldn't snatch that acting award, but without seeing Mystic River who am I to judge?
In fact, I agree with Remixor. In my eyes, Lost in Translation was the best movie of the year, but it was a long shot all along. At least it got a compensation in the form on the Original Screenplay award.
Anyway, congratulations to Return of the King!

By the way, our Movies Channels have launched an Oscar special three weeks ago, and it ended yesterday. During this time, I have seen roughly 20 movies, most of them excellent. Always good to have an excuse to watch good movies, eh?

I go with 5.