I thought the egg was running away because it was specifically a legendary dog egg. The legendary dogs all run away when you first find them, so the joke is that he spent all this time getting this impossible egg, and then it just runs away like the dogs do. I liked it, it was random but kind of apropos at the same…

"They're kind of just a justification for the kind of rooftop-race/score-attack type of challenges we've seen in other open-world games, I guess, but the justification is just so wonderful and executed so well, that I'm immediately a fan."

I dunno, I'm a Level 5 / JRPG fan and I'm a bit disappointed in Ni No Kuni. I'll probably get back around to finishing it eventually, but lots of little things are just poorly done, which is kind of sad because I was really excited about the game.

I think it's a waste of energy to worry about people who don't appreciate a game—if they don't like it, that's their opinion, and if they're yelling that hyperbolically from the rooftops, they probably just want to start an argument. To me, if people's opinions matter at all then it's a waste to worry about what's…

"Milk monster" cracks me up! XD

For real. :( Although you have to admit, it is very apropos. A comic making fun of how console warriors take themselves too seriously spawns a comment section full of console warriors taking the comic too seriously...

I know what EA is doing, and I don't see anything wrong with it. We protect trademarks so that business can't make imitation products and pass them off as authentic by using their competitors' names. But EA isn't doing that—EA's videogames don't compete with the guns they're using. If the game was entirely about those…

I think that for games on XBL and PSN, Microsoft and Sony are only publishers in the sense that they distribute and market the games. If the developer still puts up the money to actually make the game, I think it's still fair to call it independent, although it is kind of a grey area.

Does Minecraft have a publisher now? I think if it started off independent, it's probably fair to keep calling it indie. Something can be both mainstream and independent though, they're not opposites.

A lot of the time people will pay money for things where the law is unclear because lawsuits are just bad news all around. Just paying the money keeps you on good terms with the other people, and lawsuits are often expensive even if you win. It's the same principle behind settling a case, really.

First off, those are copyrights and what's at issue in the article are trademarks. Second off, a more apt analogy would be that you could make a movie where a character in the movie plays NFS, Mass Effect, and Dead Space on screen.

I'm totally baffled by this. When Nyan Cat sues Scribblenauts, everyone thinks it's a bogus lawsuit and is all anti-copyright, but when EA doesn't pay someone just because they depict their guns in games, everyone is suddenly all pro-trademark? What in the world? Is this some kind of anti-EA prejudice, or are people…

What's morally wrong about it? I mean, if I made a movie and a character in that movie drank a Coca-Cola, would it be morally wrong for me not to pay Coca-Cola for the free advertising? I know court decisions seem arbitrary sometimes for people who don't agree with them, but courts do think about morality when they're…

You're confusing different meanings of the word "respect." Respect can mean admiration, but it also means "to refrain from interfering with," which is what people usually mean when they say to respect other peoples' beliefs.

I feel like you could call it a shooter, but if we're saying Deus Ex: Human Revolution isn't a shooter, then I don't think the Prime games should be considered shooters either.

I'm twenty-five, and they had lego robotics when I was in middle school. Although they're fairly expensive, so I don't know many kids who get them. I was in "lego league" in middle school, and we built a robot out of legos and programmed it to run a simulated mission to rescue astronauts stranded on the moon. We went…

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think there are some things worth considering.

Well, trademarks have to be defended or else you can lose them, but there isn't an analogous requirement for copyrights as far as I'm aware. The purpose of a trademark is to identify a company or source of a good. If you let other people use your trademark in connection with different goods, it doesn't serve that…

I didn't say it was parody—I was just citing that for the proposition that commercial use isn't definitive. Parody was an important issue in Campbell, but the idea of "transformative use" discussed in that case is more important overall (although Wikipedia doesn't really talk about that much, strangely). I assumed you…

Commercial use doesn't disqualify you from fair use automatically. Whether or not you made money on your use is just one of four factors courts consider in fair use, and it isn't the most important factor either. See eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_….