|
|
#181
03-26-2011, 02:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I don't have epilepsy.. neither does anyone in my family or anyone who comes to my house... If this safegaurd is not switchable then it basically penalizes those who do not suffer from this illness... So here is to hoping it is a switchable feature..
|
|
#182
03-26-2011, 02:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is yet another disappointment. Between never knowing when this game will be released and hearing that UBI is taking the reigns this is another turn downhill. I'm not here to rant and moan, but simply let you know this kinda became the final straw for me and I do not see myself purchasing this game with any kind of limiter in place. Been beefing my system the last year and I know have my beast to find their will be FPS limitations. This is a CYA for a less than 1% of the population issue. It's a sad day when a freaking video game has to follow guidelines for seizure patients. Maybe we should make the world out of pillows for Hemophiliacs. Sad. If there is no switch for this I assure you lost 1 of many potential customers.
Thank you. |
|
#183
03-26-2011, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 S! |
|
#184
03-26-2011, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am in the nursing profession & have a special interst in this topic.
Luthier reports the game caused "wide-scale epilepsy failures when tested". This suggests a high incidence of photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) was encoutered amongst game beta-testers. In contrast, the incidence of PSE across Great Britain has been reported to be about 1.1 per 100,000 persons (0.0011%) [Quirk et.al. 1995]. The decision to impliment an "epilepsy filter" is presumably based upon Luthier's anecdotal observations, rather than the scientific evidence. The low incidence of PSE in the community does not seem to justify such a decision. References J. A. Quirk, D. R. Fish, S. J. M. Smith, J. W. A. S. Sander, S. D. Shorvon and P. J. Allen, Incidence of photosensitive epilepsy: a prospective national study. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Volume 95, Issue 4, October 1995, Pages 260-267 Last edited by salmo; 03-26-2011 at 03:40 AM. |
|
#185
03-26-2011, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Luthier,the problem is that the entire community don't want this filter,don't want any removal of graphic effect who possibly affect suspension of disbelief either.
As this filter isn't something that law obligate,what about to talk about with Ubi and drop all those things who are hampering the game and menacing CoD sales and maybe the future of the series? Besides,no one will convince a judge that he "accidentally" deactivate the epilepsy filter in the confi.ini setting it to 0 for example. That's another way to do something about it,allow the filter to be optional. I can't believe that in any country in the world someone can sue anyone because his personal choices even in US, am I wrong? |
|
#186
03-26-2011, 03:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it's a automated testing tool that is used, rather than incidents in the beta program. It's used in TV/games production to measure contrast changes and 'score' the result for problems or susceptibility.
Also, saying 'I don't have epilepsy, so why bother' is missing the point of the guideline, in that it was introduced after video games caused seizures in people who didn't previously show any symptom. PS Not saying I agree with the use of this 'filter' but just trying to help with actual info. Quote:
|
|
#187
03-26-2011, 04:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Well in that case I dont see what all the fuss is about, Just advertise it as: "IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, comes with free epilepsy tester for you and your whole family at no extra cost!" They really are dumb at ubi marketing, sheeesh. |
|
#188
03-26-2011, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#189
03-26-2011, 05:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
IL-2 Cliffs of Dover - Your Eyes Will Roll Back In Excitement! 'Buy it now - it caused me to swallow my own tongue - it's that good!' - A recovering fan. (*) Strobe light DLC attachment coming soon - see online for details (Apologies if in bad taste - trying to lighten the mood a bit) |
|
#190
03-26-2011, 05:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
To Luthier & Oleg et al;
Sorry to say this after you've produced what looks to be the most exciting development in flight sim gaming for some time, but you've made a BAD mistake implementing this filter, and I'll tell you why. Firstly, the whole issue has "knee-jerk reaction" written all over it. Due to one isolated case of photo-sensitive epilepsy, you've now neutered a game for 3/4 of the worlds potential players over a perceived risk that will, at-best affect 0.01% of that same population. And even if such cases do arise, which undoubtedly they will, will be very unlikely to result in serious injury or death in all but the most unusual or freakish of situations. And I can't see any judge awarding in favour of a plaintiff who disregarded or ignored suitable warnings. I understand why you've done it. With the discovery coming so close to release date, you've implemented this quick fix (which I'd prefer to call a nasty hack), but your time over the last month would of been much better spent contacting Ubisoft's legal department to see how the laws stand in countries where the game is to be released. Also, being Russian, and therefore not used to European / American / Western laws, I can also see how the fear of being sued into oblivion would prompt you to take some action. However the notion you provide that this filter cannot be made optional due to the risk of being sued is fundamentally flawed. In the UK, AFAIK, the ONLY requirement for any product that may induce photo-sensitive epilepsy is that a disclaimer notifying users of the potential dangers is prominently displayed. Be it either in the packaging, or within the program. There are no lawful provisions in this country (yet) that make such a filter a mandatory requirement. Nor can i envisage a situation where any such law would be passed. As to the poster who commented about the possibility of their child wandering into the room and suffering an attack by accident; that is scaremongering at best, and clutching at straws at worst. As a responsible adult and a parent, it is my responsibility to be aware of the risks to my child and therefore protect him from them. For example, keeping chemicals & medicines out of his reach are two prime examples. The law does not mandate that I must not or cannot use said medicines or chemicals because I have children. To do so would be health & safety gone mad. Being a safety rep at my place of work I'm well aware of how health & safety law applies in the workplace as well as in the home. Take another point which I've often used to argue that these companies that offer "no-win-no-fee" cases to people ought to be themselves outlawed; If I'm walking along the high street and trip on a uneven flagstone, I should not be able to then sue my local council for damages because I was too inept / blind / stupid to be looking where I was walking in the first place. As long as the council at least followed the laws of the land to ensure my reasonable safety, the rest of the responsibility lies with me as a somewhat mature, rational, responsible adult. Claims culture is a method of greed by people to obtain money under false pretences for injuries to which they were too ignorant to take the risks into account for themselves. The majority of sane, responsible adults should not be made to pay for the idiotic actions of those who are determined to injure themselves despite warnings and precautions put in place to protect them. All that would be required if this issue did present any significant risk, would be to up the age restriction to 18's and over and as I've already said provide a disclaimer, and as some companies do, list measures how such risks of seizure can be avoided WITHOUT neutering the game from the get go. I can tell you one law that will hurt you more than any perceived damage from Epilepsy. It's called the Sale of Goods Act. The product has to be fit for the purpose for which it was designed, and must be able to run according to the specifications that are published along with it. If I were Maddox games I'd be more worried by people suing me over the reduction in performance this filter brings with it, rather than the minuscule chance of an adverse epileptic reaction. It doesn't matter if patches are later released to "address" this issue. If the game is released on the 31st across the West, unable to be run on the specifications you as developers, and Ubisoft as publishers have mandated, you'll lose a hell of a lot more money in returns, cancellations and court cases than all the seizure court cases that would ever likely to be brought against you. I don't see Call of Duty shipping with a mandatory filter. The only differences i can see aside from one being simulator and one FPS, is that one is at ground-level so there are less strikingly contrasting colours suddenly appearing, even when there are flashes and such like. White muzzle flashes, prop discs, debris are of course going to be more noticeable on a flight sim at 20,000ft, it goes without saying. And anyone with half a brain in their head will realize this too, however that does not excuse neutering or removing features because of it. Kudos to Luthier for having the balls to confess to the origin and nature of such a filter. I do wonder if he would of been so forthcoming with the information had it not surfaced on the Russian forums first though. But either way you look at it, this is a rushed hack job that was shoe-horned in to keep the release on schedule. But the only mistake was not allowing responsible adult gamers the ability to CHOOSE for themselves what risks they wish to subject them or their immediate family to. You dropped the ball here guys. It won't tempt me to cancel my pre-order, but be prepared for some very long-lasting negative feedback around the globe if this decision isn't rectified / reversed quickly. A scandal is what it will very likely turn into otherwise. Last edited by gibxxi; 03-26-2011 at 05:36 AM. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
