Page 78 of 79 FirstFirst ... 286876777879 LastLast
Results 3,081 to 3,120 of 3138

Thread: Other than Bioshock

  1. #3081
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    Nope. I'm not interested in the franchise. The sony platformer adventure games from Sony that i grew up with were Ratchet and Clank/ Jak and and Daxter. Crash Bandicoot never grabbed me.
    Ratchet and Clank/ Jak and and Daxter were PS2 titles. Crash Bandicoot is PS1. What games did you play on PS1 if not Crash Bandicoot?

    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    To give my opinion on Telltale, I still think their storytelling and the options they give you to mold the main character to your liking are still strong( I thought their recent Batman game was the best at that), though their formula by this point is stale. Also, why i did really enjoy the first-two episodes of season three of The Walking Dead, I'm not going to be ignorant to the fact that Telltale dropped the ball with how they built up the game; from revealing that Javier would be the main protagonist instead of Clem two months before the game was released, to the treatment of the season two endings and how they would impact Clementine's behavior in season three, and the reason why the premiere was a two parter. I don't know if you have been to the telltale forums lately, but the outrage has been enormous. Unless they can bounce back with the remaining three episodes, I think this will be the last time telltale fans would be excited for a walking dead game by them.
    I just checked out the forums and you're right. There's a lot of outrage. I'm surprised by that because I thought people liked Season Three because it got good critic reviews. I guess this is one of those games that has a divided opinion between fans and critics.

    Still I'm not sure if Telltale will change their ways unless there's a drop in sales.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I watched a Let's Play (too many games, not enough money). Yes, it's a weird blend of Middle Ages Prague and Future Dystopia Prague and the accents do indeed sound more Russian than anything else, but honestly East Euros should just stop their whining and be glad that an AAA developer actually made the effort to step out of their Anglo-Saxon comfort zone a bit and cared to feature their awesome city, however inaccurate. It's not like Czechs are pop culture sweethearts that the average Joe should have in-depth knowledge about. Slavs are particularly very touchy about them being confused with Russians all the time, like it's some capital offense. They're annoying as hell. For someone unfamiliar with the region it's nigh impossible to tell them apart, yet they usually act like babies about it. If a big budget game featured a Hungarian character voiced by an American with some broken accent, I'd be like "OMG it finally happened!" and not "So lame he didn't pronounce 'kürtőskalács' right."

    About the being cut in half part, at least in Dragon Age they put some effort into the restructuring. Deus Ex's ending felt like someone literally axed it apart with a sharp object.
    Well I guess that's what happens when Square Enix becomes your Publisher.

    Dragon Age Inquisition was also a considerable length. It didn't look like they even cut the story in half. With Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, even the play hours were short.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I was on babysitting duty this year, it was my Christmas gift to my sister (since I didn't have a better idea) so they could have a night out. At other times I usually find some friends to spend it with somewhere in the city.

    I like those Sydney pics very much, must be quite a sight in real life. I have some distant relatives living there but the relationship is not the best unfortunately, so no Sydney trips for me.
    There's no official spectacle in Budapest on New Year's (they save it for the national events), but anyone can buy smaller fireworks in stores so the locals gather together and do the shooting themselves.
    You ever shoot fireworks? I did when I was a kid.

    Also what do you do in the city during New Year's Eve? In Sydney, everyone just goes to see the fireworks.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Especially not Ciri. What I feel the problem is with the main characters, is that they're pretty much a bunch of well-versed Mary-Sues with singular token flaws, as if created by some algorithm. Ciri is immature, Geralt is antisocial, Yennefer is pompous, Triss is two-faced etc. Aside from those, they're all super attractive, super intelligent, superpowered supermodels with perfect makeup at all times, always on the moral high ground, in very sharp contrast with their environment where almost everyone else is an illiterate peasant, a religious nut, or just an a-hole. Ciri also has the Chosen One cliché to boot. The characters that are actually multilayered are few and far inbetween, like Djikstra, Lambert, or the Bloody Baron. That they were able to give depth to these guys in a very limited screentime is actually pretty impressive.
    Can't you level that argument against some of the characters of Dragon Age as well? Also don't Dragon Age characters also have the moral high ground? I mean aren't all main stories in each Dragon Age game supposed to be about Good vs. Evil.

    Also what do you think of moral ambiguity in Dragon Age Inquisition vs. The Witcher 3? Which game would you say does it better? Most people I know opt for The Witcher 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I did enjoy Batman Arkham Asylum very much, though admittedly not because of the main character. It's true that I don't like him much, for the same reason I'm indifferent to Geralt as they're the exact same archetypes. Buffed guys in a cool armor with cool gadgets, intimidating posture, dry humor (if any), and sparse communication skills mostly revolving around tough-guy one liners. What I imagine a boy fantasy to be. It's interesting for half an hour, but after that it's just flat and predictable. About as deep as a Barbie doll.
    So I guess you enjoyed it for The Joker then? I mean the appeal of the Batman Arkham games is Batman and the Joker. If you don't like either then I don't see you liking the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Well, how many awards it got later in the year is not necessarily connected to the good sales it gathered from the get-go. I believe that most people who ended up buying it would have bought it regardless, story award or not. It sure was a nice extra, but it could have easily gathered a dozen GOTY awards (the most recognizable buzzword for the average consumer) even with a half-baked narrative, for its vast content and overall design. See GTA V.
    The ironic thing is that many critics praised GTA V's half-baked narrative. I think it's storytelling style was jsut unique and that's what got praise. The actual story wasn't anything special.

    GTA has always had a weak story and that's why I was surprised that Rockstar managed to pull off a fairly good story in Red Dead Redemption. Red Dead Redemption 2 is coming out this year. Did you like Red Dead Redemption?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I was completely satisfied with them, I don't really have ideas that would make them improve on that front. If I feel that the villain of a story is a serious threat, doesn't have a big fat label with "EVILZ" written on it, has clear-cut yet vague motivations, constantly seems to overwhelm the protagonists and suceeds at making me feel small, then I'm sold on it. These are simple criteria, but harder to deliver. If it was that easy to do it you'd think other game developers would hop on that, as it is a convenient tool to weave a game plot, no? I don't think it's actually that simple. Bad examples being the Flood or the Covenant from Halo. No sense of threat, no mystique. The Umbrella Corps from Resident Evil: too goofy and hard to take seriously, also literally "EVILZ". Viruses and natural disasters in many games: they are just there, nothing is actually controlling them.

    Edit: Heck, I count the Wild Hunt here as well. Supposed to be the spooky overlords of legends, wielding the scary magic of old, yet they are barely present in the game (aside from the last quarter or so) and end up being not much of a threat at all. They manage to kill old guy Vesimir for plot reasons, and that's about it. Even some second rate side quest villains in the same game could teach them a trick or two.

    Whereas in Dragon Age: Origins for example, they clearly established the Blight to not be just some wallpaper conflict from very early on. Right at the opening battle the Archdemon's army curb stomps a major garrison, along with 99% of the warriors that were conditioned to stop them. The first notable location in the game, the village of Lothering, which you spend time to explore and do quests in, gets wiped off the map not much later, leaving a permanent mark of death you can never return to. If you let any potential companions there (like Sten, who remains in captivity if you don't free him) also die then and there. Poof, like that. It's made crystal clear to the player that the Archdemon is no joke and he means business.

    That type of villain is rare in other mediums as well, though the Joker from Batman immediately comes to mind. He's not really a person, but an idea dressed as one (that being Chaos). I think that's a fine thread to walk, but BioWare managed to pull it off with the Illusive Man in particular (who is a mouthpiece for Human Supremacy). A bit more and you make them simple puppets, a bit less and they're not threatening enough.
    I also found The Wild Hunt to be a bit underwhelming. I thought the Crones were better villains.

    Also did you dislike how BioWare handled The Crooked Man in Mass Effect 3? I heard a lot of people disliked it.

    Also what did you think of the Mass Effect 3's ending backlash? Do you think it was justified or did fans go overboard? I think soem really did like the guy who tried to sue BioWare for the ending.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Not a jerk per se, just the type that people around her tolerate, but all secretly hate. No one likes a Smart Alec.
    Can't the same criticism be applied to Poirot? TBH I find Poirot to be more arrogant than Marple.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Yeah, they are curiously absent from games. Dad-aged developers are skittish about pairing women and kids for some reason, like they never had a mother or something. There are a few decent side plots in Mass Effect 2 (Samara's hunt for her rogue daughter) and Dragon Age Inquisition (Morrigan and son), but they are not full-fledged stories.

    Anyway, a few I remember:

    Not Without My Daughter - A novel and movie based on "true events". American mom and kid are stuck in the Middle East among meanie Islamists and struggle to escape. Not a particularly flattering (or even accurate) image of Iran, but the family dynamic is pretty strong.

    Aliens - Much like in The Last of Us, the protagonist loses her own kid early on (sort of), and dedicates herself to protect the substitute from man-eating horrors.

    Bad Moms - If profane comedies slide... It was pretty decent. The not often discussed side of motherhood.

    Arrival - Very recent one, but it's my current favorite movie. Without spoiling too much, the aliens coming to Earth are not the central theme here, despite what the trailers and posters (purposefully) imply. Not a story without holes by any means, but it's certainly impactful and it easily won me over. The kind of movie I wanted Interstellar to be but left disappointed back then. I might actually check out the original author's other works sometime.
    It's not just games, it seems to be basically all mediums. Even a lot of those parent-child films seem to focus disproportionately on the father's relationship with the child rather than the mother's.

    Anyway the films you mentioned do have an element of motherhood in them but I don't see how they explore motherhood. I think a story about motherhood should really explore the struggles of motherhood. It should show how a mother's life is changed due to her children. How a mother has to learn to make sacrifices for her children. It should explore how motherhood is a dynamic process and how everyone's mothering experience has to be different. For example, a mother has to behave fairly when she has another child otherwise her other kids will feel neglected. Etc

    The films you mentioned don't seem to be about these topics:

    Not Without My Daughter - This is more about the strained relationship between a husband and wife then a mother and child.

    Aliens - I guess this does have some element but it isn't explore that much. Ellen Ripley barely talks to her daughter figure.

    Bad Moms - Comedy films rarely have any depth.

    Arrival - Once again this is more about communication between different species (which could be a metaphor for culture). The daughter is nothing more than vision.

    I want a story akin to The Last of Us and The Walking Dead but I want Joel/Lee to be a woman rather than a man. Can you think of any stories like that from any medium at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Don't know yet, I'll wait for the reviews. I used to love the first games as a kid, but it understandably became a bit less engaging as I got older, unlike Sonic games. I mean, 'gotta go fast' doesn't get old.
    I think one of the reasons why platforming games got less engaging and popular is because it's difficult to innovate with them. The only old school platforming series that's still running if Ratchet and Clank but it's more of a mix of shooting and platforming so there's more that can be done with it.

  2. #3082
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Ratchet and Clank/ Jak and and Daxter were PS2 titles. Crash Bandicoot is PS1. What games did you play on PS1 if not Crash Bandicoot?
    I never had a PS1. My first experience with playstation was Jak and Daxter on PS2. Before that I had the SNES and for a short time the N64(it was stolen from me, so my experience with the system was short lived, and the only games i played on the N64 were Donkey Kong 64 and Banjo Kazooie).


    I just checked out the forums and you're right. There's a lot of outrage. I'm surprised by that because I thought people liked Season Three because it got good critic reviews. I guess this is one of those games that has a divided opinion between fans and critics.

    Still I'm not sure if Telltale will change their ways unless there's a drop in sales.
    Tbh, while i do get a few of the criticisms leveled at season three( its treatment of the second season's ending is a prime example) to me a lot of it comes across as "they didn't make the game I want". If feels more like they're not giving this new direction a chance just because we don't get to play Clementine as a main character, so they're just going to just ☺☺☺☺ on it regardless if its actually any good. I think season three is going to be one of those games where you have to take in consideration of both sides of the spectrum( critic and fan reception).

    As for Telltale, I don't think they will change unless someone comes along and rivals them. I know many people will say Life is Strange was that game, but to me it was not that good of a game, and it didn't do anything special for the point and click genre in terms of gameplay. Also Dontnod isn't exclusively making point-and-click games, and are unsure if there will be a second season.

  3. #3083
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Dragon Age Inquisition was also a considerable length. It didn't look like they even cut the story in half. With Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, even the play hours were short.
    Well, they are two different genres. Deus Ex was still short however you look at it, but DAI stretched its lifespan with mostly MMO filler. If you put together the length of the story missions without the fluff, I doubt it would be more than 12 hours. The game just withheld your character's access to those until you did some considerable busywork.


    You ever shoot fireworks? I did when I was a kid.
    Sure, I love them. I used to have a lot of petards as well as a kid but after seeing a few gruesome videos about petard-related accidents I stopped using them, lol.

    Also what do you do in the city during New Year's Eve? In Sydney, everyone just goes to see the fireworks.
    Budapest has a very active nightlife so there are a lot of clubs and pubs open at any given time. Sometimes I go to their events, or a house party, or join some random group of strangers on the major squares. They usually have lots of champagne and fireworks to share with anyone who passes by, sometimes even food and outdoor music.

    Can't you level that argument against some of the characters of Dragon Age as well? Also don't Dragon Age characters also have the moral high ground?
    No, I don't think so. BioWare is about characters first and they still take that policy quite seriously. Any given companion or major character faces some sort of personal crisis one way or another in their stories, often independently of the player's actions. They are just generally portrayed as more fallible. The premise of Inquisition itself is kickstarted by one of your companion's disastrous decisions, unbeknownst to you at the time, which he then seeks to remedy by manipulating you into fixing them. Cole, a spirit of compassion almost gets consumed by a fit of rage when he meets his former tormentor. Confident hardass Morrigan's entire self-image shatters when she fails to protect her own kid. Pious Leliana starts to question God's existence when she witnesses yet another world-shaking conflict unfold before her eyes. The list goes on. They make mistakes, get into disagreements with you and with others, and they get proven wrong sometimes, just like anyone else. It makes them much more relatable.

    The Witcher's main characters face minor obstacles they overcome each time, but they're never challenged in their values and are never outsmarted. They remain detached, untouchable and above the plebs at all times. Figures in a Shakespearean play, instead of actual people who could walk into your room at any time to talk over a pint of beer.

    I mean aren't all main stories in each Dragon Age game supposed to be about Good vs. Evil.
    Why do you think so? Aside from maybe Corypheus, none of the DA antagonists were evil. The Archdemon is merely a victim of the Blight, same as the Darkspawn themselves, with the Blight's origins being more unclear than ever. Neither Meredith and Orsino in DA 2, or Solas in Inquisition were Satan, they looked after the interests of their respective demographic at all costs. Nothing is only black or white.

    Also what do you think of moral ambiguity in Dragon Age Inquisition vs. The Witcher 3? Which game would you say does it better? Most people I know opt for The Witcher 3.
    I think they are about equal on that aspect. Witcher fans tend to be so zealous that if asked "Which makes a better toast: A toaster or The Witcher 3?" they'd still answer The Witcher 3.
    Both involve moral dilemmas and the majority of decisions are based on personal preference rather than clear cut morals. Like which person you make the ruler of Skellige/Orlais, or who do you side with in a conflict Roche/Djikstra or Mages/Templars. There are a few instances that stick out in both cases, like making a deal with the demon Imshael in DAI, or leaving Radovid on the throne in The Witcher when there are obviously less cruel alternatives. You can't otherwise do excessive goods or evils in either game.

    So I guess you enjoyed it for The Joker then? I mean the appeal of the Batman Arkham games is Batman and the Joker. If you don't like either then I don't see you liking the game.
    True, but it wasn' just the Joker. Batman's villains in general are tend to be interesting. It also had fun gameplay, creative boss fights and clever level design. I didn't play the open world sequels because that's too much of Batman for my tastes, but I'd play a shorter and more linear game similar to Asylum.

    GTA has always had a weak story and that's why I was surprised that Rockstar managed to pull off a fairly good story in Red Dead Redemption. Red Dead Redemption 2 is coming out this year. Did you like Red Dead Redemption?
    I did, though I'm not into western in general, I got the game as a gift. It was nicely done, I'm glad that it exists even if I wasn't that crazy about it myself, if that makes sense. As Yahtzee said, it's a beautifully written, beautifully made timewaster.

    I also found The Wild Hunt to be a bit underwhelming. I thought the Crones were better villains.
    Agreed. It'd be nice if there was a DLC about them where you encounter them as a different Witcher character in the past or something.

    Also did you dislike how BioWare handled The Crooked Man in Mass Effect 3? I heard a lot of people disliked it.
    Nah, I liked it. The guy was always intended to be a metaphor, and if that's how someone views him it makes perfect sense. I guess people took issue with his actions in the ending and how he could have possibly ended up in the Crucible beside Shepard. My personal theory is that neither the Illusive Man or Anderson is physically there, the scene is just symbolism for Shepard's inner conflict.

    Also what did you think of the Mass Effect 3's ending backlash? Do you think it was justified or did fans go overboard? I think soem really did like the guy who tried to sue BioWare for the ending.
    I think it was way overblown, though some backlash was justified. The original ending was a nonsensical trainwreck. EA sqeezed the game out of them way before it was ready. With the Extended Cut DLC though I'm satisfied with the conclusion just fine. People who sue devs over crap endings... well okay. Get a life maybe.

    Can't the same criticism be applied to Poirot? TBH I find Poirot to be more arrogant than Marple.
    Poirot is arrogant too, but he's upfront about it and is rarely dishonest. People know what they're in for right when they meet him. Ms Marple on the other hand takes some weird pleasure from misleading her environment with clueless old gal image over and over again, when she's perfectly aware that she's anything but.

    Anyway the films you mentioned do have an element of motherhood in them but I don't see how they explore motherhood. I think a story about motherhood should really explore the struggles of motherhood. It should show how a mother's life is changed due to her children. How a mother has to learn to make sacrifices for her children. It should explore how motherhood is a dynamic process and how everyone's mothering experience has to be different.
    So far this is literally Bad Moms. And it's not even a particularly good movie. Thing is, motherhood in itself is not interesting. Sacrifice, burden, gift, unconditional love. A comedy obviously won't have revolutionary messages about it, but neither will a drama. I'm not sure what you expect to gain from a story like that.

    If a movie is nothing else but a mom and her kid(s) being mom and kids, that's some pretty boring premise. Hence why they usually use it only as a clutch for some more eventful plot.
    Take away the apocalypse scenario from TLOU and what remains? Damaged dad with issues warms up to a substitute. How is that interesting in itself? Not to mention that fatherhood isn't at all different from motherhood, once a child is not biologically chained to the mother and you stripe away traditional gender roles.

    What would change in TLOU's story if Joel and Tess's roles were switched? Nothing, that's what. This whole motherhood business is overmystified.

    Aliens - I guess this does have some element but it isn't explore that much. Ellen Ripley barely talks to her daughter figure.
    Actions speak louder than words. How does word count define a relationship? It's the closest you'll get to a genderswapped Last of Us anyhow.

    Arrival - Once again this is more about communication between different species (which could be a metaphor for culture). The daughter is nothing more than vision.
    Have you seen the movie from beginning to end? As I said, the trailers and posters are intentionally misleading. The daughter is not a vision. The big twist of the movie is what we thought were glimpses of Louise's past throughout the movie was actually her future, for her exposure to the aliens' language changed her perception of time. Even when knowing she's going to lose her daughter to cancer and how it will break her, she still wants to have her anyway. If that's not a powerful statement in favor of motherhood, I don't know what is.


    Further movies I can think of are Mildred Pierce (both the original and the HBO miniseries) and A Home of Our Own, but both of those focus more on unlucky families' general struggles in life where motherhood is just one element.


    I think one of the reasons why platforming games got less engaging and popular is because it's difficult to innovate with them. The only old school platforming series that's still running if Ratchet and Clank but it's more of a mix of shooting and platforming so there's more that can be done with it.
    It's become more of a niche genre than it used to be but it's not dead. I enjoyed Pupeteer and Unravel in the recent past and they both had their own unique style. The Last Guardian has platforming in it as well, and I loved it to bits. I'd even update it as my GOTY.
    Last edited by biccs_pudding; 01-13-2017 at 11:30 AM.

  4. #3084
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    And the final episode of Sherlock was a disappointment which makes Sherlock the most polarising show I've ever watched. Either it's really good or it's really bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    I never had a PS1. My first experience with playstation was Jak and Daxter on PS2. Before that I had the SNES and for a short time the N64(it was stolen from me, so my experience with the system was short lived, and the only games i played on the N64 were Donkey Kong 64 and Banjo Kazooie).
    Did you watch the Ratchet and Clank movie that came out last year? It's a shame that around 6 video game-based movies came out last year yet each of them performed poorly.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Well, they are two different genres. Deus Ex was still short however you look at it, but DAI stretched its lifespan with mostly MMO filler. If you put together the length of the story missions without the fluff, I doubt it would be more than 12 hours. The game just withheld your character's access to those until you did some considerable busywork.
    True. I never got why BioWare made Inquisition MMO-like. It's like they just ran out of design ideas. It's such a big departure from what their games' original Dungeons and Dragons inspired level design that was first seen in Baldur's Gate.

    Have you ever tried Dungeons and Dragons? It's the most popular tabletop RPG in the world. However I don't really like it because it's not skill based enough. A lot of it is just luck based because the main mechanic of the game is a dice roll.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    No, I don't think so. BioWare is about characters first and they still take that policy quite seriously. Any given companion or major character faces some sort of personal crisis one way or another in their stories, often independently of the player's actions. They are just generally portrayed as more fallible. The premise of Inquisition itself is kickstarted by one of your companion's disastrous decisions, unbeknownst to you at the time, which he then seeks to remedy by manipulating you into fixing them. Cole, a spirit of compassion almost gets consumed by a fit of rage when he meets his former tormentor. Confident hardass Morrigan's entire self-image shatters when she fails to protect her own kid. Pious Leliana starts to question God's existence when she witnesses yet another world-shaking conflict unfold before her eyes. The list goes on. They make mistakes, get into disagreements with you and with others, and they get proven wrong sometimes, just like anyone else. It makes them much more relatable.

    The Witcher's main characters face minor obstacles they overcome each time, but they're never challenged in their values and are never outsmarted. They remain detached, untouchable and above the plebs at all times. Figures in a Shakespearean play, instead of actual people who could walk into your room at any time to talk over a pint of beer.
    What about how Ciri has to decide if she should become a Witcher or a Queen by the end of the game? How Geralt has to reconcile with his previous life that he lost memories of (e.g. he has to choose between Yennefer and Tess)?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Why do you think so? Aside from maybe Corypheus, none of the DA antagonists were evil. The Archdemon is merely a victim of the Blight, same as the Darkspawn themselves, with the Blight's origins being more unclear than ever. Neither Meredith and Orsino in DA 2, or Solas in Inquisition were Satan, they looked after the interests of their respective demographic at all costs. Nothing is only black or white.
    I was more referring to their treatment in the narrative. The villains to have shades of grey but the shades of grey don't seem to be incorporated in how the characters are dealt with in the narrative. Basically all the games end with the good guys beating the bad guys. Then it's over.

    If there are shades of grey in a villain, I'd like to see some sort of lasting consequences when you defeat them e.g. maybe defeating this villain will unleash a worst villain so maybe you shouldn't defeat this villain. I understand something like that is difficult to incorporate in game design but there are a few games, such as Planescape Torment, that have done a decent job at addressing this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    True, but it wasn' just the Joker. Batman's villains in general are tend to be interesting. It also had fun gameplay, creative boss fights and clever level design. I didn't play the open world sequels because that's too much of Batman for my tastes, but I'd play a shorter and more linear game similar to Asylum.
    Did you watch Suicide Squad? That was a film entirely about Batman's villains. However they acted more like anti-heroes in the film.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Nah, I liked it. The guy was always intended to be a metaphor, and if that's how someone views him it makes perfect sense. I guess people took issue with his actions in the ending and how he could have possibly ended up in the Crucible beside Shepard. My personal theory is that neither the Illusive Man or Anderson is physically there, the scene is just symbolism for Shepard's inner conflict.
    Has BioWare said anything about the villains in the new Mass Effect game? I wouldn't mind if the Illusive Man returned in some form.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Poirot is arrogant too, but he's upfront about it and is rarely dishonest. People know what they're in for right when they meet him. Ms Marple on the other hand takes some weird pleasure from misleading her environment with clueless old gal image over and over again, when she's perfectly aware that she's anything but.
    So you like people who just come up and admit they're arrogant? You don't like people who try to pretend they're nice when they're not?

    If the latter is true then you must hate Trump because that's exactly what he is.

    Also Poirot's arrogance is the reason why I had trouble understanding why he was being portrayed as all religious in the TV adaption with David Suchet. Being a good Christian is all about being humble.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    So far this is literally Bad Moms. And it's not even a particularly good movie. Thing is, motherhood in itself is not interesting. Sacrifice, burden, gift, unconditional love. A comedy obviously won't have revolutionary messages about it, but neither will a drama. I'm not sure what you expect to gain from a story like that.

    If a movie is nothing else but a mom and her kid(s) being mom and kids, that's some pretty boring premise. Hence why they usually use it only as a clutch for some more eventful plot.
    Take away the apocalypse scenario from TLOU and what remains? Damaged dad with issues warms up to a substitute. How is that interesting in itself? Not to mention that fatherhood isn't at all different from motherhood, once a child is not biologically chained to the mother and you stripe away traditional gender roles.

    What would change in TLOU's story if Joel and Tess's roles were switched? Nothing, that's what. This whole motherhood business is overmystified.
    Do you believe most mothers would agree with that view?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Actions speak louder than words. How does word count define a relationship? It's the closest you'll get to a genderswapped Last of Us anyhow.
    Yeah it is the closest to The Last of Us but I still think it's not good enough.

    'Actions speak louder than words' is true in most cases but I'd say that parenthood is an exception. If a parent barely talks to their child, I don't see how they can even be a decent parent. I think talking is a really important part of parenthood so when it's absent from a movie about parenthood then the movie just isn't that good.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Have you seen the movie from beginning to end? As I said, the trailers and posters are intentionally misleading. The daughter is not a vision. The big twist of the movie is what we thought were glimpses of Louise's past throughout the movie was actually her future, for her exposure to the aliens' language changed her perception of time. Even when knowing she's going to lose her daughter to cancer and how it will break her, she still wants to have her anyway. If that's not a powerful statement in favor of motherhood, I don't know what is.
    I'd say the most important pat about motherhood is raising the child. Those were really the best moments in The Walking Dead and The Last of Us.

    However Arrival doesn't have these moments because the daughter is just a future vision. We don't really see her raising her daughter.

    Even the new trailer for the Logan, the new Wolverine film, has clips of Wolverine teaching X-23 things:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DekuSxJgpbY

    A lot of people have pointed out the similarities between Logan and The Last of Us. Are you planning on seeing Logan?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    It's become more of a niche genre than it used to be but it's not dead. I enjoyed Pupeteer and Unravel in the recent past and they both had their own unique style. The Last Guardian has platforming in it as well, and I loved it to bits. I'd even update it as my GOTY.
    People tell me that The Last Guardian is too much like a movie. Not enough gameplay. I guess you could level that criticism at all of Ueda's games. How do you think The Last Guardian compares to Shadow of the Colossus?


    Also Nintendo did their Switch reveal and I like their lineup. I'm looking forward to their new Legend of Zelda game. I just hope the Switch sells better than the Wii U which basically failed.
    Last edited by TSCR; 01-21-2017 at 05:36 PM.

  5. #3085
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post

    Did you watch the Ratchet and Clank movie that came out last year? It's a shame that around 6 video game-based movies came out last year yet each of them performed poorly.
    No, but I have heard nothing but negative things about it. I did play the movie-tie in/reboot that was released to coincide with the film, which was pretty good. I don't think we will ever see a good video-game movie.

  6. #3086
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    True. I never got why BioWare made Inquisition MMO-like. It's like they just ran out of design ideas.
    They had bits of a sliced narrative and a tight schedule, so I think that's exactly what happened.

    Have you ever tried Dungeons and Dragons? It's the most popular tabletop RPG in the world. However I don't really like it because it's not skill based enough. A lot of it is just luck based because the main mechanic of the game is a dice roll.
    I always wanted to but didn't have anyone to play it with. This is as hardcore geek as it gets and the required investment (on top of the language barrier) drives most people away, uderstandably. I'm not bothered by the luck-based mechanic, but playing with total strangers just drains the fun out of it.

    What about how Ciri has to decide if she should become a Witcher or a Queen by the end of the game? How Geralt has to reconcile with his previous life that he lost memories of (e.g. he has to choose between Yennefer and Tess)?
    Those are not decisions that the characters make for themselves, the player does it for them instead. Ciri has zero agency in the game aside from the last 5 minutes. She's essentially the same kid you met in the prologue, in an adult body. A blank page whose actions are defined by the adults around her. Case in point: If Geralt doesn't convince Ciri to have a talk with her father, she never becomes Queen on her own.
    As for Geralt's decisions, his person doesn't change a bit no matter what you make him do. The only difference is which picture you're shown in the epilogue. In comparison, the player character in DAI has a huge arc starting as a nobody, becoming a powerful leader and ending up as a humiliated cripple in the Trespasser DLC (each of these steps are out of the player's control). The fact that The Witcher is more or less an adaptation and Geralt is a defined character of his own is not a good enough excuse, imo.

    I was more referring to their treatment in the narrative. The villains to have shades of grey but the shades of grey don't seem to be incorporated in how the characters are dealt with in the narrative. Basically all the games end with the good guys beating the bad guys. Then it's over.

    If there are shades of grey in a villain, I'd like to see some sort of lasting consequences when you defeat them e.g. maybe defeating this villain will unleash a worst villain so maybe you shouldn't defeat this villain. I understand something like that is difficult to incorporate in game design but there are a few games, such as Planescape Torment, that have done a decent job at addressing this issue.
    Defeating the Archdemon in the first game ended the Fifth Blight, that's true. But all in-game characters know that the Darkspawn were once people like anyone else, there are more Blights to come and they can do nothing about it. In the expansion DA: Awakening, there is actually quite a bit of humanizing going on for the Darkspawn when the player meets sentient ones who could talk. One of the "baddies" of the game, a Darkspawn himself, turns out to be the one who accidentally triggered the Fifth Blight, even though all he wanted was to prevent it and protect the dragon from corruption. You can then choose to either slay him or spare him and support his efforts, risking the chance that he messes up yet again. That was a tough one.

    In DA 2, the clash of the factions is just an unfortunate event that escalates out of hand, there's no good or bad side to take. Your close companion decides to be a terrorist and blows up the whole hullabaloo regardless of what anyone does. And he's not even evil either, just hopelessly fanatical and equally as stupid.

    In DAI yes, I think one could argue that Corypheus and his minions were nothing but trouble and it was in everyone's interest to get rid of them. No shades of grey there, though DAI is not the first game where Corypheus appears. He got unleashed from his prison during DA 2's DLC, due to an NPC's misguided idea that he could be used to end all Blights.

    Did you watch Suicide Squad? That was a film entirely about Batman's villains. However they acted more like anti-heroes in the film.
    Yeah I did watch it recently. The characters were fun. Too bad the movie didn't know what to do with them.

    Has BioWare said anything about the villains in the new Mass Effect game? I wouldn't mind if the Illusive Man returned in some form.
    Not that I know of. It's sure that BioWare wants to turn a new page, so they made it clear that none of the Trilogy's events would affect anything in the new game, as it takes place in a different galaxy altogether, in a different time. That means that the Illusive Man's appearence is very unlikely. I think that's a clever decision. This way they're not bound by any of the myriad possible choices that the players made before, including the endings. It would be impossible to design that without making one particular chain of choices definite canon, which BioWare repeatedly said was not going to happen.

    So you like people who just come up and admit they're arrogant? You don't like people who try to pretend they're nice when they're not?
    It comes down to honesty. Arrogance is a major flaw, but not all flaws are equal. You can still trust an arrogant person despite their antics, but you can never trust people with masks.

    If the latter is true then you must hate Trump because that's exactly what he is.
    Actually, I do like his bluntness. He's definitely not afraid to speak his mind on issues generally considered as sensitive. That's an admirable quality in a politician. It's a pity that it is combined with massive ignorance and childlike attention span in his case.

    Also Poirot's arrogance is the reason why I had trouble understanding why he was being portrayed as all religious in the TV adaption with David Suchet. Being a good Christian is all about being humble.
    I dunno, we have a lot of so called Christians around here who are all sorts of pricks. Such are people.

    Do you believe most mothers would agree with that view?
    About motherhood being overmystified? Probably not. It gives them a priviliged and respected status that is generally considered a stronger bond than fatherhood because of ages old social constructs that are not really all that practical anymore these days. Since most people are selfish, I doubt most women would like to let go of that privilige in order to give men the same opportunity. I do hope that Western society reaches that point eventually, but modern feminism doesn't help at all.

    'Actions speak louder than words' is true in most cases but I'd say that parenthood is an exception. If a parent barely talks to their child, I don't see how they can even be a decent parent. I think talking is a really important part of parenthood so when it's absent from a movie about parenthood then the movie just isn't that good.

    I'd say the most important pat about motherhood is raising the child. Those were really the best moments in The Walking Dead and The Last of Us.

    However Arrival doesn't have these moments because the daughter is just a future vision. We don't really see her raising her daughter.
    Arrival does have key scenes about different points in the daughter's life with her mother, but fair enough.

    Even the new trailer for the Logan, the new Wolverine film, has clips of Wolverine teaching X-23 things:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DekuSxJgpbY
    This is all nice and well, but I doubt there would be many scenes like that in a Wolverine movie. The situation is not that different from TLOU.
    I'll watch the movie eventually, probably not straight away though. I'm in the countryside for a while now and going to a bigger city for the sake of a new movie is a bit of a hassle.

    People tell me that The Last Guardian is too much like a movie. Not enough gameplay.
    That's some odd criticism I haven't heard from anyone. It's definitely not movie-like. In fact, the core dynamic (getting along with Trico) can only work as a game, while the same cannot be said for the blockbuster Naughty Dog games for example. Ueda himself said that the creature's occasionally reluctant behavior (a very divisive subject among critics and players alike) was a conscious design decision to make the Trico feel more alive. A non-interactive medium can't replicate that. There are a few cutscenes here and there including the ending, but I don't see how that turns it into a movie more than the average single player game.

    How do you think The Last Guardian compares to Shadow of the Colossus?
    Colossus had more varied gameplay as its protagonist and enemies were more capable, but Guardian gives a more satisfying narrative. I don't think either of them is better than the other, they're great in different ways and the controls are finicky in both. I like that despite the aesthetic similarities their respective themes have little to do with each other.

    Also Nintendo did their Switch reveal and I like their lineup. I'm looking forward to their new Legend of Zelda game. I just hope the Switch sells better than the Wii U which basically failed.
    The new Zelda game looks like something I'd want to play (I never had a Nintendo nor played any Nintendo games) but I wouldn't buy a new console just for that. Nintendo is infamous for milking its core franchises and doing little else.

  7. #3087
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    No, but I have heard nothing but negative things about it. I did play the movie-tie in/reboot that was released to coincide with the film, which was pretty good. I don't think we will ever see a good video-game movie.
    I haven't play the movie tie-in yet because it was basically a reboot of the original game which came out in 2002. Did you play the original game? How do you think the reboot compares to the original?

    TBH I never liked the idea of the reboot for a number of reasons:

    1. I'm not a fan of reboots, especially in games. Most of the time I think they're just lazy and in many ways make the games worse e.g. Devil May Cry.

    2. I'm not a fan of movie tie-in games in general because most of them aren't good. I mean look at the Harry Potter video games. Ratchet and Clank (2016) isn't in the exact same category because it started off originally as a video game series. However thew few games that I've seen in this category haven't been that good. Usually they feel random and unfitting in the series.

    A good example of this is World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor. It came after the excellent expansion World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria. However Warlords of Draenor had weaker gameplay and fitted in poorly in the narrative. Mist of Pandaria kept foreshadowing the return of the Burning Region and made it look like that was the next big conflict in the game. But nope - in Warlords of Draenor the next big conflict was a war with a new evil Horde that was created via time travel to the past. It felt like Blizzard only created that expansion to advertise their Warcraft movie which was set in the same time period (which is in the pre-WoW timeline) as the game. That explains why they introduced convoluted plot devices like time travel to the past.

    Ratchet and Clank (2016) is in a similar position. It looks like a reboot but it feels like they only did it to help advertise the movie (even some of the cutscenes in the game are straight out of the movie). Also it doesn't make sense for the new Ratchet and Clank game to be a reboot. I mean the ending of Into the Nexus implied there were still more stories to tell because Clank got the Dimensionator. This suggested that Clank was going to use the Dimensionator to locate the Lombaxes in the next Ratchet and Clank game. However that doesn't happen because the next game is a movie tie-in/reboot.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    They had bits of a sliced narrative and a tight schedule, so I think that's exactly what happened.
    BTW have you played any MMOs? I used to be a big fan of WoW back in the days but nowadays I've lost almost all interest in it except the lore sometimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Those are not decisions that the characters make for themselves, the player does it for them instead. Ciri has zero agency in the game aside from the last 5 minutes. She's essentially the same kid you met in the prologue, in an adult body. A blank page whose actions are defined by the adults around her. Case in point: If Geralt doesn't convince Ciri to have a talk with her father, she never becomes Queen on her own.
    Is it bad if we make the decisions for them? I mean doesn't doing so make the decisions more interactive?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    As for Geralt's decisions, his person doesn't change a bit no matter what you make him do. The only difference is which picture you're shown in the epilogue. In comparison, the player character in DAI has a huge arc starting as a nobody, becoming a powerful leader and ending up as a humiliated cripple in the Trespasser DLC (each of these steps are out of the player's control). The fact that The Witcher is more or less an adaptation and Geralt is a defined character of his own is not a good enough excuse, imo.
    I guess I can agree with this.

    Have you read The Witcher novels? The games are based off the novels and the novels are usually where the bulk of Geralt's character development takes place. Geralt actually died in the last novel but the games revived him. In the first game, Geralt has amnesia so he doesn't remember Ciri or Yennefer.

    I think CD Projekt Red did this because they wanted freedom to do what they wanted with his character. However by the third game, they decided to have Geralt gets his memories back. All of this makes Geralt's story in the games a bit of a convoluted mess. I can see why big fans of the novels would consider Geralt's story in The Witcher games to be pretty pointless overall.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Defeating the Archdemon in the first game ended the Fifth Blight, that's true. But all in-game characters know that the Darkspawn were once people like anyone else, there are more Blights to come and they can do nothing about it. In the expansion DA: Awakening, there is actually quite a bit of humanizing going on for the Darkspawn when the player meets sentient ones who could talk. One of the "baddies" of the game, a Darkspawn himself, turns out to be the one who accidentally triggered the Fifth Blight, even though all he wanted was to prevent it and protect the dragon from corruption. You can then choose to either slay him or spare him and support his efforts, risking the chance that he messes up yet again. That was a tough one.

    In DA 2, the clash of the factions is just an unfortunate event that escalates out of hand, there's no good or bad side to take. Your close companion decides to be a terrorist and blows up the whole hullabaloo regardless of what anyone does. And he's not even evil either, just hopelessly fanatical and equally as stupid.
    I don't think I played Awakening. How much humanising was there in your opinion? Was it just this one character or was it on a larger scale?

    Dragon Age 2 did have better morally ambiguous characters. However I did think the game messed up with them slightly at the end. This video explains why:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onr_z45NVyI

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Yeah I did watch it recently. The characters were fun. Too bad the movie didn't know what to do with them.
    Sounds like what they did with Wonder Woman in Batman V. Superman.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Not that I know of. It's sure that BioWare wants to turn a new page, so they made it clear that none of the Trilogy's events would affect anything in the new game, as it takes place in a different galaxy altogether, in a different time. That means that the Illusive Man's appearence is very unlikely. I think that's a clever decision. This way they're not bound by any of the myriad possible choices that the players made before, including the endings. It would be impossible to design that without making one particular chain of choices definite canon, which BioWare repeatedly said was not going to happen.
    I haven't seen BioWare speak much about the story of the game. All I know is that it's set 600 years in the future and we'll be exploring some new galaxy.

    Also I suspect BioWare will do some time travel in a DLC or something in which we get to meet Shepherd but not majorly affect his story. I think something like that is almost inevitable in a sci-fi universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Actually, I do like his bluntness. He's definitely not afraid to speak his mind on issues generally considered as sensitive. That's an admirable quality in a politician. It's a pity that it is combined with massive ignorance and childlike attention span in his case.
    I don't think bluntness is a good quality in a politician unless they're willing to do it to themselves. Most of the time I only see politicians resort to being brazen when they want to score political points for themselves. It's selfishness disguised as honesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I dunno, we have a lot of so called Christians around here who are all sorts of pricks. Such are people.
    You know I never thought about Poirot that way but it makes sense. The books don't really allow us to see Poirot's political views but I can imagine him being a stereotypical right winger proclaiming, 'Abortion is evil! Children always deserve to live!'

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    About motherhood being overmystified? Probably not. It gives them a priviliged and respected status that is generally considered a stronger bond than fatherhood because of ages old social constructs that are not really all that practical anymore these days. Since most people are selfish, I doubt most women would like to let go of that privilige in order to give men the same opportunity. I do hope that Western society reaches that point eventually, but modern feminism doesn't help at all.
    While we're on this subject, may I ask what did you think of the Women's March? How did you interpret it? There are a lot of conflicting views on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    This is all nice and well, but I doubt there would be many scenes like that in a Wolverine movie. The situation is not that different from TLOU.
    I'll watch the movie eventually, probably not straight away though. I'm in the countryside for a while now and going to a bigger city for the sake of a new movie is a bit of a hassle.
    I hate going to the countryside because the countryside here tends to have bad internet. I can't live without good internet. How's the internet where you're at?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    That's some odd criticism I haven't heard from anyone. It's definitely not movie-like. In fact, the core dynamic (getting along with Trico) can only work as a game, while the same cannot be said for the blockbuster Naughty Dog games for example. Ueda himself said that the creature's occasionally reluctant behavior (a very divisive subject among critics and players alike) was a conscious design decision to make the Trico feel more alive. A non-interactive medium can't replicate that. There are a few cutscenes here and there including the ending, but I don't see how that turns it into a movie more than the average single player game.
    Have you heard of Joseph Anderson? He's a relatively new YouTuber who does in depth review of games:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyh...XCMKxQQ/videos

    He made a case of The Last Guardian being too much like a movie on his blog (he didn't make a video on it yet). If you don't mind a bit of a long read here's what he said:
    https://jphanderson.wordpress.com/20...r-free-review/

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    The new Zelda game looks like something I'd want to play (I never had a Nintendo nor played any Nintendo games) but I wouldn't buy a new console just for that. Nintendo is infamous for milking its core franchises and doing little else.
    Well Nintendo is making the Switch more accessible to third parties as Skyrim is going to be on it. BTW have you played the Elder Scrolls games? I never got into them after trying Skyrim because I thought Skyrim just wasn't interesting in terms of narrative and world building. It was just a really really big place with a lot of stuff but not enough depth.

    I did heard that Morrowind does have these qualities but I haven't tried that game yet.

  8. #3088
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    2. I'm not a fan of movie tie-in games in general because most of them aren't good.
    I'd agree that most of them are trash, but I think it's only because they're usually low-effort to begin with. I count Wolverine: Origins (which is better than the movie itself) and most of the Star Wars games to be exceptions. There is always potential of making great tie-ins if they build it up as a fun game with a proper budget first that happens to draw on the given movie's world. As long as they only set out to pump out quick cash-ins the trend's not going to change of course.

    BTW have you played any MMOs? I used to be a big fan of WoW back in the days but nowadays I've lost almost all interest in it except the lore sometimes.
    I briefly tried WoW back in its younger years but it made me decide that I don't much like MMOs or online stuff in general. It just all felt like a chore with random Internet people ordering you around in the meanwhile.
    I gave a bit more time to SWTOR when it came out, and while I did like the 'BioWare' in it a lot, the chore part still remained so I abandoned that one as well. I'd much rather they'd made an offline KotOR 3 instead.

    Is it bad if we make the decisions for them? I mean doesn't doing so make the decisions more interactive?
    It does make them interactive, but it reduces your companions to being the player character's pets whose lives would collapse like a house of cards if daddy Geralt isn't there to fix everything for them. Giving them advice or nudging them towards a certain direction is fine, but not all the damn time. That's not how human relationships work (between adults at least).

    In DA you certainly have influence on many of your companions' decisions, but you don't have power over certain others, like when Anders blew up the Circle, or when Morrigan joined the Inquisition. They didn't ask your opinion about something they, as persons of their own, firmly decided on doing. These are usually fixed plot-related events, but they also elevate them from being the player's sockpuppets. I felt the Witcher was lacking in that sense, as literally everything in that world seemed to revolve around Geralt's deeds, despite him not being that much of a significant person.

    Have you read The Witcher novels? The games are based off the novels and the novels are usually where the bulk of Geralt's character development takes place. Geralt actually died in the last novel but the games revived him. In the first game, Geralt has amnesia so he doesn't remember Ciri or Yennefer.

    I think CD Projekt Red did this because they wanted freedom to do what they wanted with his character. However by the third game, they decided to have Geralt gets his memories back. All of this makes Geralt's story in the games a bit of a convoluted mess. I can see why big fans of the novels would consider Geralt's story in The Witcher games to be pretty pointless overall.
    I didn't read the novels so I only have the game to judge him by, and his backstory is indeed a mess. I heard from fans that the games don't really do the characters justice, which explains a few things, but it doesn't make me want to delve into the originals that much either. I enjoyed the 'game' part of the Witcher but its story and world didn't do anything for me so I think I'd just waste my time.

    I don't think I played Awakening. How much humanising was there in your opinion? Was it just this one character or was it on a larger scale?
    Larger scale, definitely. It makes the player rethink about this whole business with the Darkspawn. Think of it as a zombie apocalypse where a clever zombie finds out that the other zombies can be partially cured. It's a bit of a game changer in morality that you can't ignore the next time you axe a bunch of them in half.
    Although in Awakening it comes with a catch that just muddies the whole thing even more. They need to drink Grey Warden blood to achieve that, the same way that Grey Wardens gain their own abilities by drinking Darkspawn blood. Funny circle, that.

    Dragon Age 2 did have better morally ambiguous characters. However I did think the game messed up with them slightly at the end. This video explains why:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onr_z45NVyI
    I agree that despite its weak content, DA 2 did an overall good job with the unorthodox story structure and the "antagonists". I'd even defend the ones criticized in the video. If the player listens to what Anders is blabbering about the whole game, his move in the end shouldn't be at all surprising. I never thought about the 9/11 reference the guy's talking about either. Is blowing up towers forbidden now in the media or something? Not to mention that there are multiple time leaps in the game and Anders could get this scheme together during any of those gaps. (And yet another critic who bashes the darkspawn for being "simply evil". Did these people even play these games?)

    I think Meredith being slowly corrupted by a plot device makes sense. She gradually becomes more and more excessive in her measures past a certain point that would have otherwise ticked my suspension of disbelief. A police state doesn't necessarily produce an insta-Hitler. They did a much poorer job with Orsino on the other hand, who strangely doesn't get a mention here. I mean, that particular w-t-f has to be seen to be believed.

    I haven't seen BioWare speak much about the story of the game. All I know is that it's set 600 years in the future and we'll be exploring some new galaxy.
    That's all that everyone knows so far, which is odd for an RPG that close to release date but we'll see.

    Also I suspect BioWare will do some time travel in a DLC or something in which we get to meet Shepherd but not majorly affect his story. I think something like that is almost inevitable in a sci-fi universe.
    I think it's possible that they get a holo message from him/her or some easter egg, but anything beyond that would be cheap fanservice that I hope they'll resist doing.

    I don't think bluntness is a good quality in a politician unless they're willing to do it to themselves. Most of the time I only see politicians resort to being brazen when they want to score political points for themselves. It's selfishness disguised as honesty.
    Well, some of the brazen things he said are being implemented right off the bat. TPP is gone, the wall will be built, and environment protection is thrown out the window. If I were an American Trump supporter now I'd be pretty satisfied.

    You know I never thought about Poirot that way but it makes sense. The books don't really allow us to see Poirot's political views but I can imagine him being a stereotypical right winger proclaiming, 'Abortion is evil! Children always deserve to live!'
    Yeah, I can definitely imagine him being that way, especially in that time period when this was even more common.

    While we're on this subject, may I ask what did you think of the Women's March? How did you interpret it? There are a lot of conflicting views on it.
    It's... hard to dissect. There's a bunch of people whose common ground is that they don't like Trump. Some are vocal about violence against the black, there's a lot of feminists, the "Not My President" people, some environmentalists thrown in and random leftists who joined because crowds are interesting. It didn't seem to have a message other than "we don't like the stuff he's been saying these past 2 years or so". Where was your movement before the election day, people? A day late and a dollar short.

    I hate going to the countryside because the countryside here tends to have bad internet. I can't live without good internet. How's the internet where you're at?
    It's okay-ish. The fastest available service is 120 mbit/s and it costs almost double as it would in the capital but it's the rents that got crazy there. You can't have everything I guess.

    Have you heard of Joseph Anderson? He's a relatively new YouTuber who does in depth review of games:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyh...XCMKxQQ/videos

    He made a case of The Last Guardian being too much like a movie on his blog (he didn't make a video on it yet). If you don't mind a bit of a long read here's what he said:
    https://jphanderson.wordpress.com/20...r-free-review/
    He sure makes some good points in his videos, but he's too much of a snob for me to take seriously.
    "This is meant to be an entry level game for people who don’t play many games. There’s no challenge."
    Someone who has this^ to say about the Last Guardian (after a bunch of paragraphs whining about framerates) loses me quickly, with hundreds of games behind me, thank you very much. But from a guy who worships Dark Souls judging by his playlist, I'm not surprised. Needless to say, his perspective on the game doesn't cover mine at all, nor do I agree with his point about it being better off as a movie, for reasons already mentioned.

    This is the type of person who's very proud about how smart he's being (which he probably is), but his arguments are not nearly as solid as he thinks they are. He's biased by his taste and skill level instead of being objective. He's being a robot oozing thick cynicism regarding Guardian, yet in one of his videos he mentions that he loves BioShock Infinite "despite its faults". I don't get this guy.
    My thoughts are more aligned with this (minus the parts about how interactive Ellie and Elizabeth are): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qot5_rMB8Jc

    BTW have you played the Elder Scrolls games? I never got into them after trying Skyrim because I thought Skyrim just wasn't interesting in terms of narrative and world building. It was just a really really big place with a lot of stuff but not enough depth.

    I did heard that Morrowind does have these qualities but I haven't tried that game yet.
    My opinion of Skyrim is identical to yours then. I considered trying Morrowind, but then again, the Elder Scrolls lore is just not interesting to me at all. Its age is maybe showing a bit. It's like those penny dreadful fantasy books of the 80s. A bunch of Tolkien clichés, knock-off deities, random magic and factions thrown together in a big shallow pool where nothing's connected and no one acts remotely like people.
    Last edited by biccs_pudding; 01-26-2017 at 05:58 PM.

  9. #3089
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    I haven't play the movie tie-in yet because it was basically a reboot of the original game which came out in 2002. Did you play the original game? How do you think the reboot compares to the original?

    TBH I never liked the idea of the reboot for a number of reasons:

    1. I'm not a fan of reboots, especially in games. Most of the time I think they're just lazy and in many ways make the games worse e.g. Devil May Cry.

    2. I'm not a fan of movie tie-in games in general because most of them aren't good. I mean look at the Harry Potter video games. Ratchet and Clank (2016) isn't in the exact same category because it started off originally as a video game series. However thew few games that I've seen in this category haven't been that good. Usually they feel random and unfitting in the series.

    A good example of this is World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor. It came after the excellent expansion World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria. However Warlords of Draenor had weaker gameplay and fitted in poorly in the narrative. Mist of Pandaria kept foreshadowing the return of the Burning Region and made it look like that was the next big conflict in the game. But nope - in Warlords of Draenor the next big conflict was a war with a new evil Horde that was created via time travel to the past. It felt like Blizzard only created that expansion to advertise their Warcraft movie which was set in the same time period (which is in the pre-WoW timeline) as the game. That explains why they introduced convoluted plot devices like time travel to the past.

    Ratchet and Clank (2016) is in a similar position. It looks like a reboot but it feels like they only did it to help advertise the movie (even some of the cutscenes in the game are straight out of the movie). Also it doesn't make sense for the new Ratchet and Clank game to be a reboot. I mean the ending of Into the Nexus implied there were still more stories to tell because Clank got the Dimensionator. This suggested that Clank was going to use the Dimensionator to locate the Lombaxes in the next Ratchet and Clank game. However that doesn't happen because the next game is a movie tie-in/reboot.
    I think the reboot surpasses the original imo. It has better gameplay, more detail in the levels and personality in the enemies you face. I felt the story was a little inconsistent, due to having scenes from the movie integrated into the game's story that didn't always mesh well.

    I agree with you stance on reboots. The failure of The Devil May Cry reboot was due to Capcom underestimating their western fans, and that the game was littered with terrible dialogue that was pretentious and was trying really hard to be relevant. At least with Tomb Raider, or in this case Ratchet and Clank, I can see why the need of a reboot: since the ps3 trilogy was concluded with A crack in Time, and the games made after were not well-received by fans or critics. Devil May Cry had only one bad game with DMC2, DMC4 was their best selling in the franchise, and DMC3 is considered to be one of the best 3d hack n slash games of all time. There was no need for a reboot.

  10. #3090
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I briefly tried WoW back in its younger years but it made me decide that I don't much like MMOs or online stuff in general. It just all felt like a chore with random Internet people ordering you around in the meanwhile.
    I gave a bit more time to SWTOR when it came out, and while I did like the 'BioWare' in it a lot, the chore part still remained so I abandoned that one as well. I'd much rather they'd made an offline KotOR 3 instead.
    Have you heard of Eve Online? It offers a somewhat unique MMO experience but it's difficult to get into if you haven't been playing it from the start.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    It does make them interactive, but it reduces your companions to being the player character's pets whose lives would collapse like a house of cards if daddy Geralt isn't there to fix everything for them. Giving them advice or nudging them towards a certain direction is fine, but not all the damn time. That's not how human relationships work (between adults at least).

    In DA you certainly have influence on many of your companions' decisions, but you don't have power over certain others, like when Anders blew up the Circle, or when Morrigan joined the Inquisition. They didn't ask your opinion about something they, as persons of their own, firmly decided on doing. These are usually fixed plot-related events, but they also elevate them from being the player's sockpuppets. I felt the Witcher was lacking in that sense, as literally everything in that world seemed to revolve around Geralt's deeds, despite him not being that much of a significant person.
    In terms of influence on companion's decisions, which BioWare game do you think did better at it? Dragon Age or Mass Effect?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Larger scale, definitely. It makes the player rethink about this whole business with the Darkspawn. Think of it as a zombie apocalypse where a clever zombie finds out that the other zombies can be partially cured. It's a bit of a game changer in morality that you can't ignore the next time you axe a bunch of them in half.
    Although in Awakening it comes with a catch that just muddies the whole thing even more. They need to drink Grey Warden blood to achieve that, the same way that Grey Wardens gain their own abilities by drinking Darkspawn blood. Funny circle, that.
    Don't you think it would have been better if this humanising Darkspawn was in the original game rather than the expansion? I mean if people didn't like the original game, they're not going to play the expansion. That's why I think a lot of reviewers say the Darkspawn are pure evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I agree that despite its weak content, DA 2 did an overall good job with the unorthodox story structure and the "antagonists". I'd even defend the ones criticized in the video. If the player listens to what Anders is blabbering about the whole game, his move in the end shouldn't be at all surprising. I never thought about the 9/11 reference the guy's talking about either. Is blowing up towers forbidden now in the media or something? Not to mention that there are multiple time leaps in the game and Anders could get this scheme together during any of those gaps. (And yet another critic who bashes the darkspawn for being "simply evil". Did these people even play these games?)

    I think Meredith being slowly corrupted by a plot device makes sense. She gradually becomes more and more excessive in her measures past a certain point that would have otherwise ticked my suspension of disbelief. A police state doesn't necessarily produce an insta-Hitler. They did a much poorer job with Orsino on the other hand, who strangely doesn't get a mention here. I mean, that particular w-t-f has to be seen to be believed.
    Wouldn't it have been believable if Meredith got corrupted slowly over all the time skips? She doesn't have to be an insta-Hitler but she can be a Hitler.

    I'm not really a fan of these Ring-like plot devices that make characters evil because they take agency away from characters. It's like how you dislike Geralt making decisions for his companions in The Witcher.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    That's all that everyone knows so far, which is odd for an RPG that close to release date but we'll see.
    A second cinematic trailer got released a few days ago:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNG_szaXNNU

    Can you make out any story details in it? I don't see much of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Well, some of the brazen things he said are being implemented right off the bat. TPP is gone, the wall will be built, and environment protection is thrown out the window. If I were an American Trump supporter now I'd be pretty satisfied.
    I was referring to how you should be ready to criticise others before criticisng yourself. Trump always criticises others but never himself. That's why I don't like his bluntness. He tried to portray himself as a realist but he actually isn't because he's not willing to apply that principle to himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    He sure makes some good points in his videos, but he's too much of a snob for me to take seriously.
    "This is meant to be an entry level game for people who don’t play many games. There’s no challenge."
    Someone who has this^ to say about the Last Guardian (after a bunch of paragraphs whining about framerates) loses me quickly, with hundreds of games behind me, thank you very much. But from a guy who worships Dark Souls judging by his playlist, I'm not surprised. Needless to say, his perspective on the game doesn't cover mine at all, nor do I agree with his point about it being better off as a movie, for reasons already mentioned.

    This is the type of person who's very proud about how smart he's being (which he probably is), but his arguments are not nearly as solid as he thinks they are. He's biased by his taste and skill level instead of being objective. He's being a robot oozing thick cynicism regarding Guardian, yet in one of his videos he mentions that he loves BioShock Infinite "despite its faults". I don't get this guy.
    My thoughts are more aligned with this (minus the parts about how interactive Ellie and Elizabeth are): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qot5_rMB8Jc
    Mark Brown probably has the most professionally edited videos out of all the YouTube video game reviewers. His videos are always great to look at it even if you disagree with his points.

    As for The Last Guardian what would you say is the main experience it's trying to sell? Is it the relationship with a pet that's also your guardian?



    Also Torment: Tides of Numenera is supposed to come out at the end of this month. However its developer has just announced that they've cut content including 3/9 companion characters, 1 major city and crafting:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comme..._goal_content/

    Torment: Tides of Numenera was mostly crowd funded and the extra content was part of the stretch goals (extra content is developed if funds are high enough to meet them). I'm starting to think stretch goals are just something developers use to get more money in crowd funding campaigns.

    I really hope Torment: Tides of Numenera doesn't end up being disappointing. It's suppsoed to be a spiritual successor to Planescape: Torment and, in case you don't know, people talk about Planescape: Torment's story the same way they talk about Dark Souls' gameplay. It's a big legacy to live up to so if you start cutting companion characters and cities a month before the game is released then it doesn't look like you're on track of living up to this legacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    At least with Tomb Raider, or in this case Ratchet and Clank, I can see why the need of a reboot: since the ps3 trilogy was concluded with A crack in Time, and the games made after were not well-received by fans or critics. .
    Did you play Into the Nexus? It was a sequel to A Crack in Time, continued the story and was fairly well received by fans and critics.

  11. #3091
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Did you play Into the Nexus? It was a sequel to A Crack in Time, continued the story and was fairly well received by fans and critics.
    I forgot about Into the nexus. You're right, it did get positive reception. I did play it, but I personally thought it was just okay. It didn't leave that much of an impact on me like the Future trilogy.

  12. #3092
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Have you heard of Eve Online? It offers a somewhat unique MMO experience but it's difficult to get into if you haven't been playing it from the start.
    It's definitely a more interesting concept than the 100th WoW ripoff, but I heard that working with the community is a big part of it and I'm just not much of a team player. There's also the timesink aspect of MMOs. I'd rather spend that same time with more succinct and varied experiences.

    In terms of influence on companion's decisions, which BioWare game do you think did better at it? Dragon Age or Mass Effect?
    They generally follow the same pattern, but there's this thing in Mass Effect that if you do certain "companion missions" the character in question becomes 100% subordinate to you, no questions asked afterward. There are these type of missions in DA too, but it means a boost in approval and not 'loyalty for life' or 'yes-man mode'. ME lacks the approve-disapprove system of DA, which makes it more clockwork than organic. On the other hand DA:O had a broken gift-giving mechanic that made this same system easily exploitable but that was since removed. So DA wins in this aspect overall, but both games handle companion independence rather well during plot-related events.

    Don't you think it would have been better if this humanising Darkspawn was in the original game rather than the expansion? I mean if people didn't like the original game, they're not going to play the expansion. That's why I think a lot of reviewers say the Darkspawn are pure evil.
    If people didn't play every installment of a franchise they're doing explanation/critique videos on, that's their own shortcoming and not the game's. That said, yes I think Awakening's plot should have been hinted at in the main game. Though I do like BioWare's policy that DLCs always have narrative relevance in the overall picture but rarely important enough to be essential. They do fill smaller holes in the puzzle, but those who only play the main games would get briefed on them soon enough. I think that's a fair way of doing it for both the hardcore and casual fans, and following that logic we definitely didn't see the last of talking Darkspawn. It's not ideal that the expansions are now fragmented into smaller DLCs, I hope the Witcher's good example catches on but it's EA we're talking about, so.... *shrugs*

    Wouldn't it have been believable if Meredith got corrupted slowly over all the time skips? She doesn't have to be an insta-Hitler but she can be a Hitler.
    That's what actually happened. Hawke and co make a trip into the Deep Roads, they encounter the plot device, then return to city, after which there's a timeskip of 2 or 3 years. Meredith acquired the artifact sometime during that gap.

    I'm not really a fan of these Ring-like plot devices that make characters evil because they take agency away from characters. It's like how you dislike Geralt making decisions for his companions in The Witcher.
    In most cases I'd agree with you, this is more like an exception for me. Meredith has a troubled backstory (her mage sister got possessed by a demon and murdered her whole family, hence her disdain for magic) and while she's certainly harsh towards mages, she said something along the lines of "they are people too, just with a curse". She never viewed them as subhumans unworthy of life, just walking bombs who have to be guarded for their own good (which is a perfectly justified way to view things in tha DA world). There's a point in the game where one of her more radical followers suggests that all mages in the city should be made Tranquil (that is similar to a lobotomy), which she refuses to carry out. The same person actively pursuing a genocide not much later is not believable to me, unless something changed in her circumstances, which it certainly did.

    A second cinematic trailer got released a few days ago:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNG_szaXNNU

    Can you make out any story details in it? I don't see much of anything.
    The Team Briefing trailer provides a bit more info than that one but both are hinting at certain things. In Alec Ryder's (the dad) character description there's this line: "Alec became interested in artificial intelligence as a means of human advancement." Which is pretty identical to the Cerberus school of thought. The narrator states that this mission is a corporate-funded private project, independent of the Alliance, and guess which shady organization likes to spend loads of money on whacky experiments. Furthermore, the ship's AI "SAM" is eerily similar to EDI, also Cerberus-made. Then there's a companion named Cora Harper who is undoubtedly linked to the Illusive Man somehow as a daughter/clone/minion, seeing that the Illusive Man's real name is Jack Harper.

    In the cinematic trailer there's this spider's web sort of substance which might potentially be another Force of Nature element (I hope), whereas the ring-headed baddies seem like puppets not unlike Saren from the first game. I imagine the blue quazar in the middle of the map has some significance as well. So my theory is that the whole Pathfinder project is secretly (or not so secretly) funded by Cerberus either as a Plan B for humanity in case Shepard can't stop the Reapers (this is also a possible ending in ME3), or the ever well-informed Illusive Man heard about a plot device in the neighbouring galaxy that could help humanity to gain dominance back in the Milky Way. I say this looks promising so far.

    I was referring to how you should be ready to criticise others before criticisng yourself. Trump always criticises others but never himself. That's why I don't like his bluntness. He tried to portray himself as a realist but he actually isn't because he's not willing to apply that principle to himself.
    I could only repeat what I said about arrogance earlier. It is a flaw, yes, but not necessarily detrimental, especially in a politician. It didn't stop Churchill, a not-so-humble guy himself, to do a bunch of good for the UK for example. It's just this is far from being Trump's only shortcoming. Being ill-informed is a much bigger problem.

    Mark Brown probably has the most professionally edited videos out of all the YouTube video game reviewers. His videos are always great to look at it even if you disagree with his points.
    Yeah, he's my favorite in game design videos. As unbiased and factual as one can get at least, which makes him superior to Extra Credits, the Anderson guy or the hordes of armchair critics, imo.

    As for The Last Guardian what would you say is the main experience it's trying to sell? Is it the relationship with a pet that's also your guardian?
    Yeah, that's the core of the thing. But it's packaged in a full-fledged "together against the unknown" sort of fairy tale. Without a serious threat, that core would still fall flat but they crafted an oppressive enough atmosphere to make it satisfying.


    Also Torment: Tides of Numenera is supposed to come out at the end of this month. However its developer has just announced that they've cut content including 3/9 companion characters, 1 major city and crafting:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comme..._goal_content/
    That sounds a lot. Did they actually reach that stretch goal though? If yes then this could be the next big Kickstarter scandal after Mighty No.9. I hope this trend doesn't continue like that, decent Kickstarter projects would also get a massive blow.

  13. #3093
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    I forgot about Into the nexus. You're right, it did get positive reception. I did play it, but I personally thought it was just okay. It didn't leave that much of an impact on me like the Future trilogy.
    Hey did you see the trailer for the new upcoming season of Samurai Jack:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrv_n4tw7w

    It premieres next month on March 11. It looks great unlike all the other recent Cartoon Network revivals.

    I also like how it looks like the episodes are going to be more plot-centric than the earlier seasons because some of the filler episodes just felt like they were unnecessarily extending the series.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    They generally follow the same pattern, but there's this thing in Mass Effect that if you do certain "companion missions" the character in question becomes 100% subordinate to you, no questions asked afterward. There are these type of missions in DA too, but it means a boost in approval and not 'loyalty for life' or 'yes-man mode'. ME lacks the approve-disapprove system of DA, which makes it more clockwork than organic. On the other hand DA:O had a broken gift-giving mechanic that made this same system easily exploitable but that was since removed. So DA wins in this aspect overall, but both games handle companion independence rather well during plot-related events.
    What do you think of Andromeda dropping the Renegade and Paragon options?
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comme...g_paragon_and/

    It looks like they want to do something more complex than a simple good/bad system but it can be really shallow if they don't do it right. That's one of the flaws of Fallout 4. Did you play Fallout 4?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    That's what actually happened. Hawke and co make a trip into the Deep Roads, they encounter the plot device, then return to city, after which there's a timeskip of 2 or 3 years. Meredith acquired the artifact sometime during that gap.
    But if there's a time skip then was a plot device necessary? I mean suppose Meredith became more like hitler over the course of 2 years. Isn't that plausible?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    In most cases I'd agree with you, this is more like an exception for me. Meredith has a troubled backstory (her mage sister got possessed by a demon and murdered her whole family, hence her disdain for magic) and while she's certainly harsh towards mages, she said something along the lines of "they are people too, just with a curse". She never viewed them as subhumans unworthy of life, just walking bombs who have to be guarded for their own good (which is a perfectly justified way to view things in tha DA world). There's a point in the game where one of her more radical followers suggests that all mages in the city should be made Tranquil (that is similar to a lobotomy), which she refuses to carry out. The same person actively pursuing a genocide not much later is not believable to me, unless something changed in her circumstances, which it certainly did.
    Don't you think there were better ways of doing it then resorting to a plot device? Like suppose a mage killed one of her closest companions and that was the last straw for her? That would cause a change in her character without taking agency away from her character.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    The Team Briefing trailer provides a bit more info than that one but both are hinting at certain things. In Alec Ryder's (the dad) character description there's this line: "Alec became interested in artificial intelligence as a means of human advancement." Which is pretty identical to the Cerberus school of thought. The narrator states that this mission is a corporate-funded private project, independent of the Alliance, and guess which shady organization likes to spend loads of money on whacky experiments. Furthermore, the ship's AI "SAM" is eerily similar to EDI, also Cerberus-made. Then there's a companion named Cora Harper who is undoubtedly linked to the Illusive Man somehow as a daughter/clone/minion, seeing that the Illusive Man's real name is Jack Harper.

    In the cinematic trailer there's this spider's web sort of substance which might potentially be another Force of Nature element (I hope), whereas the ring-headed baddies seem like puppets not unlike Saren from the first game. I imagine the blue quazar in the middle of the map has some significance as well. So my theory is that the whole Pathfinder project is secretly (or not so secretly) funded by Cerberus either as a Plan B for humanity in case Shepard can't stop the Reapers (this is also a possible ending in ME3), or the ever well-informed Illusive Man heard about a plot device in the neighbouring galaxy that could help humanity to gain dominance back in the Milky Way. I say this looks promising so far.
    So is it just us and our crew entering Adromeda? So we basically don't know anyone there and have to make alliances of some sort?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I could only repeat what I said about arrogance earlier. It is a flaw, yes, but not necessarily detrimental, especially in a politician. It didn't stop Churchill, a not-so-humble guy himself, to do a bunch of good for the UK for example. It's just this is far from being Trump's only shortcoming. Being ill-informed is a much bigger problem.
    Did you think the good things Churchill did for the UK were helped along by his bluntness? If so then what things are you referring to?

    Classic example of Trump being ill informed is how he rages on twitter. He just went on a rant earlier after the US Court OF appeals refused to reinstate his Muslim Ban.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Yeah, he's my favorite in game design videos. As unbiased and factual as one can get at least, which makes him superior to Extra Credits, the Anderson guy or the hordes of armchair critics, imo.
    What's wrong with Extra Credits? I think they're fairly unbiased and factual.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Yeah, that's the core of the thing. But it's packaged in a full-fledged "together against the unknown" sort of fairy tale. Without a serious threat, that core would still fall flat but they crafted an oppressive enough atmosphere to make it satisfying.
    Would you say The Last Guardian has a good story? Ueda once said that he believed that games couldn't tell good stories or something along those lines. However a lot of people found Shadow of Colossus' story to be quite memorable.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    That sounds a lot. Did they actually reach that stretch goal though? If yes then this could be the next big Kickstarter scandal after Mighty No.9. I hope this trend doesn't continue like that, decent Kickstarter projects would also get a massive blow.
    They did reach some of their stretch goals:
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...es-of-numenera

    However I think backers starting withdrawing their money when they announced that some of the features got cut.

    I hope this doesn't flop like Mighty No. 9. There's a very capable team behind this game (a lot of them worked on the original Planescape Torment). This game is expected to be at least be decent but a lot of people want it to be GOTY.

    I'm expecting this to be my GOTY. It's probably my most anticipated game of this year. What's yours? Mass Effect: Andromeda?

  14. #3094
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Hey did you see the trailer for the new upcoming season of Samurai Jack:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrv_n4tw7w

    It premieres next month on March 11. It looks great unlike all the other recent Cartoon Network revivals.

    I also like how it looks like the episodes are going to be more plot-centric than the earlier seasons because some of the filler episodes just felt like they were unnecessarily extending the series.
    I did and it looks really damn good. It looks like they have more freedom this time to tell the story they want to tell without worrying of censorship( actual red blood, seemingly more violent, animation quality improvement). Do we know who is going to voice Aku?

    What do you think of Andromeda dropping the Renegade and Paragon options?
    I'm all for it. It sounds like they're going for something very similar to how Dragon Age:Inquisition handled its morality mechanic(approval/disapproval), which is good, because I felt it was mostly superior to the renegade and paragon options in mass effect.

  15. #3095
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    What do you think of Andromeda dropping the Renegade and Paragon options?
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comme...g_paragon_and/
    Thank God.
    A morality system in ME never made sense in the first place. Ever since the first KotOR's success (where it was pretty much mandatory to include a "light vs dark" scale to stay true to the Star Wars movies), BioWare shoehorned that mechanic into other franchises with no context to fit it into, like Jade Empire and Mass Effect. I'm surprised it even took this long to get rid of it. A more Dragon Age-like approval system would be a welcome change.

    Did you play Fallout 4?
    No. After Skyrim I'm just not interested in the rather bland RPG experience that Bethesda can provide, and the gameplay videos didn't change my mind.

    But if there's a time skip then was a plot device necessary? I mean suppose Meredith became more like hitler over the course of 2 years. Isn't that plausible?
    I think not. Meredith has a rigid personality and worldview, I don't see how time could change that by itself.

    Don't you think there were better ways of doing it then resorting to a plot device? Like suppose a mage killed one of her closest companions and that was the last straw for her? That would cause a change in her character without taking agency away from her character.
    I guess it could have been done that way, with Meredith discovering evidence of a far-reaching mage conspiracy on top of some personal tragedy. I wouldn't say it would be better though, just different. This sort of narrative would have required some extra setup in a game that had about a single year's time (!) of development and where every second of rendering counted. Going with the easier Cursed Artifact trope (especially if it could also be integrated into the lore as well as the protagonist's main quest) was an 'okay' decision imo.
    I don't feel like Meredith's agency was taken away. It was her decision to forge a sword out of that shiny red crystal she knew nothing about, either out of vanity or as an experiment to extend her power. The initial mistake was her own, she wasn't tricked with a present from a third party or anything. Sh-t tends to happen to the careless.

    So is it just us and our crew entering Adromeda? So we basically don't know anyone there and have to make alliances of some sort?
    Something like that. Though I just read in some tweet that we're not the only Pathfinder team sent there, there are three others that are controlled by Asari, Turians and Salarians respectively (there goes my conspiracy theory about Cerberus out the window... oh well). There are a bunch of motherships with who-knows-what on them, and the Tempest is our main reconnaisance unit by the looks of it. Whether they have terraforming equipment or they're just lollygaging, I have no clue.

    Did you think the good things Churchill did for the UK were helped along by his bluntness? If so then what things are you referring to?
    With "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat," as someone's first speech as prime minister, yes I think his bluntness played a big part. He called out Germany's aggression before anyone else in Europe. During the war, he held up people's spirits in their darkest hour. When almost his entire cabinet wanted to surrender to the Germans, he resisted. More importantly, without his support for technological development (the invention of the radar among other things), the outcome of the war could have been very different. After the war, he was pretty much the only person who raised his voice about half of Europe being handed to a genocidal terror regime as a war trophy, when everyone else liked to pretend that the world beyond the Iron Curtain didn't exist.

    On the other hand he was a chainsmoking alcoholic, an unabashed racist, a main player in carving up the Middle East like some bad jigsaw puzzle, and the embodiment of Western colonial tyranny. I'd say he's the perfect example that even a massive a-hole of a person can achieve good things if he's in the right place at the right time. (Not saying that Trump is also that person, just that he's not going against some unwritten principle in the history of politics.)

    Classic example of Trump being ill informed is how he rages on twitter. He just went on a rant earlier after the US Court OF appeals refused to reinstate his Muslim Ban.
    It's certainly entertaining to read, but someone should really take that app away from him already.

    What's wrong with Extra Credits? I think they're fairly unbiased and factual.
    EDIT: Solar corrected me regarding an EC episode in question. Below I wrote that they mainly criticized vigors, but the subject was actually "shooting" so just swap those. Apologies.

    They tend to criticize things purely from an artistic standpoint. Which is okay for aspiring indie developers, but it's completely useless or downright harmful for designers with bigger ambitions in the AAA field. One of the crew (James I think) is said to be a professional game designer, but he's only been counseling and YouTube-ing for years now and I'm fairly sure he hasn't been around big budget projects that much to begin with. For example in the BioShock Infinite episode they disparage Irrational for keeping the plasmids/vigors in the game as a mechanic when it made a bit less sense in the new setting. "Why not just throw out your core mechanic and trust your artistic vision?" they said. That has to be the dumbest advice for a game's "improvement" I've ever heard. Yeah, throwing out the action from BioShock and risk alienating the fanbase further (with bigwig 2K executives' leash tightly wrapped around Levine's neck) sure sounds like a brilliant idea, pff. It's like these guys have no idea (or just ignore) how corporations work or that at the end of the day you have to SELL these things for profit.

    At the same time The Walking Dead S1 episode is a starry eyed gush with pink confetti all around, without a single thought spent on the formula's glaring faults. Because Telltale's not racist and EC likes poetry very much or something. They do have good insight on the mechanical part of things, but Mark Brown has the same with better editing and without EC's "our interpretation of Ctulhu is better than yours" arty farty bias. I do like their Extra History series though, where that same arty farty approach is actually a great alternative to dry wikipedia articles.

    Would you say The Last Guardian has a good story? Ueda once said that he believed that games couldn't tell good stories or something along those lines. However a lot of people found Shadow of Colossus' story to be quite memorable.
    Yeah, I found both to be pleasant and memorable stories despite their simplicity. I guess their enjoyment comes down to whether someone likes fairy tales or not. They are definitely not for everyone, one won't find mindblowing depth or witty metanarratives here.

    I'm expecting this to be my GOTY. It's probably my most anticipated game of this year. What's yours? Mass Effect: Andromeda?
    Yeah, the Andromeda trailers got me quite optimistic. I'm also very curious (I guess this counts as anticipation) about how Kingdom Come will turn out. I'm eager to try a non-fantasy RPG campaign for once.

    Why do you think Torment would be GOTY material? Are you a fan of the story?
    Last edited by biccs_pudding; 02-13-2017 at 06:45 PM.

  16. #3096
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,535
    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    They tend to criticize things purely from an artistic standpoint. Which is okay for aspiring indie developers, but it's completely useless or downright harmful for designers with bigger ambitions in the AAA field. One of the crew (James I think) is said to be a professional game designer, but he's only been counseling and YouTube-ing for years now and I'm fairly sure he hasn't been around big budget projects that much to begin with. For example in the BioShock Infinite episode they disparage Irrational for keeping the plasmids/vigors in the game as a mechanic when it made a bit less sense in the new setting. "Why not just throw out your core mechanic and trust your artistic vision?" they said. That has to be the dumbest advice for a game's "improvement" I've ever heard. Yeah, throwing out the "Bio" from BioShock and risk alienating the fanbase further (with bigwig 2K executives' leash tightly wrapped around Levine's neck) sure sounds like a brilliant idea, pff. It's like these guys have no idea (or just ignore) how corporations work or that at the end of the day you have to SELL these things for profit.
    (pokes head in). Actually, I think Extra Credit's has a point here. In the first 2 games Plasmids/Tonics and how they were created is a VERY important plot point. But in BSI Vigor's are just.... there and only a single voxophone giving any sort of very minor explanation. It wasn't until Burial at Sea we learn what happened. Now they didn't have to make the origin of Vigors a major plot point as they did in BS with the Little Sisters (though there concept art thats shows a girl with a cage on her head that become monsterous ) but I think it probably would have been better for BSI Main Game if Vigors where something different than ADAM. Going back to ADAM seems too easy a thing to have done. Just to make sure I am NOT against Vigors in any way, in fact I like them better than the Plasmids, just that they are ADAM based. sm
    (runs away)

  17. #3097
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Infinite's handling of the vigor mechanic is not beyond criticism, and I certainly agree that it should have been thought out a bit better. But Extra Credits argues that the whole thing should have been left out entirely. The title of the episode itself "In Service to the Brand" criticizes the legitimacy of keeping recognizable features throughout all the entries in a given series. For me this is just pure ignorance on their part. Not giving credit to the power of Brand Recognition in a heavily profit-oriented world is missing the very first lesson of marketing. Game development is full of hard decisions and compromises. It's easy to preach about artistic purity when you're not the one being responsible for a studio's survival and the livelihood of hundreds of employees. That EC completely ignores this on a regular basis annoys me more than I'd care to admit and I stopped watching them altogether.

  18. #3098
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,535
    I just rewatched "In Service To The Brand" and EC does NOT argue that Vigors should have been left out. They argue that the Vigors should have had an impact on Columbia (people using them) that is not seen. Remember in Burial at Sea and how "Booker" lights Elizabeth cancer stick or the waiter teleporting around? We should have seen that sort of thing in Columbia, but don't. It creates a bit of a dissonence. And that's what they complained about.

    The mechanic they DO think should have been left out is the looting system. I mean why the &$^% would you be searching garbage cans in Columbia? You really wouldn't. I actualy tried a run through where I didn't loot all that much to see if it changed anything (it didn't) thinking that maybe Levine pulled a fast one on us. (Play BSI as it were "real" and not act as if it were a game and maybe you could see inside the crib.) The loointg mechanic created a huge dissonece for me the first time I played it. I honestly expected the mechanic not to be in the game and thought it hurt it. Not to mention all the time it took to loot stuff and it leaves poor Elizabeth standing around doing nothing. Heck even the game designers knew it. Remeber they put eatable potatos in a toilet? That's the kind of thing EC was talking about. sm

  19. #3099
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    My bad, I watched it a long time ago and confused things. They were talking about the shooting that was unbecoming of Infinite, not the vigors primarily. Too much shooting... in an FPS franchise. And too much violence in Columbia because poor fanatic policemen.
    In my previous post switch the word "vigors" with "shooting". I did make an error there. Not arguing with the looting mechanic, they do have a point there, but the great monologue at the end of the video is still complete bonkers. Infinite walked on thin ice during its entire development and while successful it still broke the studio. How many more creative risks should have they taken before shrinking the player base even more, really? Trust your players my ass.

  20. #3100
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,535
    Will agree about the critism of the shooting was a bit out of line. Though I would have liked to see Booker use his head more often. But IG did walk on thin ice even with the changes they did make. There are a lot of people that ☺☺☺☺☺ insanely that "There are only 2 weapons!" even today. sm

  21. #3101
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    I guess my gripe with EC actually started with that Infinite episode, which I watched immediately after the aforementioned Walking Dead S1 episode. They started off like "Infinite has a lot of great things in it! Now let's talk about only the bad ones." Okay, I disagree with your points, so I suppose there will be an episode about the good things next... well yeah, that never happened. So one flawed-but-great game gets showers of praise, but another flawed-but-great game gets nothing but scorn. I love both of these games, but cherrypicking crap like that just drives me off the wall.

  22. #3102
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,535
    I think some of it might have to do with what the subject was. The one on BSI was not a review of BSI. It was using BSI as an example of the concept "Service to the Brand". EC is not a review show, but a teaching show. It's not there to be balanced towards a game. For the Walking Dead they were using it as an example of something else.

    As a note I still go back and watch "Zero Punctuations" BSI review from time to time. sm

  23. #3103
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    I know they're not reviewers, but there's still that cherrypicking they're doing. They could have analysed the Walking Dead's clumsier mechanics the same way they did with Infinite, and they could've spent some time with Infinite's artsy bits (heck, they even say it out loud that there would be a lot to talk about) the same way as with the Walking Dead, but they did neither. Their arbitrary artistic sensibilities always take priority. Just comes off as half-assed and disingenuous. Same thing they did with God of War. "These gorefest simulators sure are a blast to play and they do X amount of things right, but instead let's talk about why the psycopath protagonist's antics doesn't score points for high art." I mean really, now? What's next? A video essay about Duke Nukem's lack of emotional development?

    Zero Punctuation gets a free pass on everything because it's comedy, but these are supposed to be professionals handing out "advice".

  24. #3104
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,535
    I can see reasons why they didn't go and look at BSI's good points. No time is a big issue. They have said many times there are things they want to do and it takes years to get to them. In the case of BSI years later means there are probably better examples out there of what they wanted to demonstrate and a several years old game it's the best way to be topical. Also they may have felt the demonstration of BSI's bad points taught people more than showing off it's good points. The same thing with Walking Dead. Showing it's good points was a better example of things they wanted to show than it's bad points. When using examples things are going to be subjective. You may not think they are good examples, but their opinions. sm

  25. #3105
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Rapture
    Posts
    171
    They need to rework Sarah's face (Mass Effect). I still hope, Pelessaria B'Sayle (Peebee) it's not another Sera. I still wonder how this place is still "alive".
    "Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt"

  26. #3106
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,535
    Some people still come here to argue. And on occasion there is some news they want to share. sm

  27. #3107
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    I did and it looks really damn good. It looks like they have more freedom this time to tell the story they want to tell without worrying of censorship( actual red blood, seemingly more violent, animation quality improvement). Do we know who is going to voice Aku?
    Not yet. I think they want it to be a surprise.

    Tartokovsky said he found someone who can do a pretty good impersonation of Mako's voice but he said Mako was irreplaceable.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Thank God.
    A morality system in ME never made sense in the first place. Ever since the first KotOR's success (where it was pretty much mandatory to include a "light vs dark" scale to stay true to the Star Wars movies), BioWare shoehorned that mechanic into other franchises with no context to fit it into, like Jade Empire and Mass Effect. I'm surprised it even took this long to get rid of it. A more Dragon Age-like approval system would be a welcome change.
    Do you think the approval system in Dragon Age is competent enough to make decisions feel important? It's been a while since I've played the game so I don't remember clearly.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Something like that. Though I just read in some tweet that we're not the only Pathfinder team sent there, there are three others that are controlled by Asari, Turians and Salarians respectively (there goes my conspiracy theory about Cerberus out the window... oh well). There are a bunch of motherships with who-knows-what on them, and the Tempest is our main reconnaisance unit by the looks of it. Whether they have terraforming equipment or they're just lollygaging, I have no clue.
    Do you think the minimalist approach BioWare is taking with advertising Andromeda's story might be in response to what they did with Mass Effect 3? BioWare hyped Mass Effect 3's story a lot e.g. they spoke about how it had all these different endings but the differences were minor etc. In a way they set themselves up for a backlash when they didn't deliver on all of their promises. Maybe now they're talking very little about Andromeda's story because they don't want to set up anyone for a disappointment?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    With "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat," as someone's first speech as prime minister, yes I think his bluntness played a big part. He called out Germany's aggression before anyone else in Europe. During the war, he held up people's spirits in their darkest hour. When almost his entire cabinet wanted to surrender to the Germans, he resisted. More importantly, without his support for technological development (the invention of the radar among other things), the outcome of the war could have been very different. After the war, he was pretty much the only person who raised his voice about half of Europe being handed to a genocidal terror regime as a war trophy, when everyone else liked to pretend that the world beyond the Iron Curtain didn't exist.

    On the other hand he was a chainsmoking alcoholic, an unabashed racist, a main player in carving up the Middle East like some bad jigsaw puzzle, and the embodiment of Western colonial tyranny. I'd say he's the perfect example that even a massive a-hole of a person can achieve good things if he's in the right place at the right time. (Not saying that Trump is also that person, just that he's not going against some unwritten principle in the history of politics.)
    I think Trump may hold the record for the most misinformed and frankly uneducated head of state to ever exist in history. I mean look at how this guy talks. This is how he defined 'uranium' in his press conference:

    https://twitter.com/tonyposnanski/st...01506179301382

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    They tend to criticize things purely from an artistic standpoint. Which is okay for aspiring indie developers, but it's completely useless or downright harmful for designers with bigger ambitions in the AAA field. One of the crew (James I think) is said to be a professional game designer, but he's only been counseling and YouTube-ing for years now and I'm fairly sure he hasn't been around big budget projects that much to begin with. For example in the BioShock Infinite episode they disparage Irrational for keeping the plasmids/vigors in the game as a mechanic when it made a bit less sense in the new setting. "Why not just throw out your core mechanic and trust your artistic vision?" they said. That has to be the dumbest advice for a game's "improvement" I've ever heard. Yeah, throwing out the "Bio" from BioShock and risk alienating the fanbase further (with bigwig 2K executives' leash tightly wrapped around Levine's neck) sure sounds like a brilliant idea, pff. It's like these guys have no idea (or just ignore) how corporations work or that at the end of the day you have to SELL these things for profit.

    At the same time The Walking Dead S1 episode is a starry eyed gush with pink confetti all around, without a single thought spent on the formula's glaring faults. Because Telltale's not racist and EC likes poetry very much or something. They do have good insight on the mechanical part of things, but Mark Brown has the same with better editing and without EC's "our interpretation of Ctulhu is better than yours" arty farty bias.
    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I know they're not reviewers, but there's still that cherrypicking they're doing. They could have analysed the Walking Dead's clumsier mechanics the same way they did with Infinite, and they could've spent some time with Infinite's artsy bits (heck, they even say it out loud that there would be a lot to talk about) the same way as with the Walking Dead, but they did neither. Their arbitrary artistic sensibilities always take priority. Just comes off as half-assed and disingenuous. Same thing they did with God of War. "These gorefest simulators sure are a blast to play and they do X amount of things right, but instead let's talk about why the psycopath protagonist's antics doesn't score points for high art." I mean really, now? What's next? A video essay about Duke Nukem's lack of emotional development?

    Zero Punctuation gets a free pass on everything because it's comedy, but these are supposed to be professionals handing out "advice".
    I see your point but I think the main reason why Extra Credits didn't talk about Infinite's artsy parts is because they thought Infinite's story was underwhelming.

    I'm not sure if you followed Infinite's marketing for its story but basically it made out Infinite to be a deep philosophical game about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc. However Infinite's story wasn't actually about any of those theses. It was actually a father-daughter story and it was disguised to be a story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.

    This is a problem in advertising stories. Usually writers don't want to give away what their story is about so when they advertise their stories they always present it in a misleading way. Levine didn't want to give away that Infinite was a father-daughter story so he made it out to be a deep philosophical game about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.

    The problem is that a lot of people consider a story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc to be more interesting than a father-daughter story. So, in essence, what Levine made out Infinite's story to be was actually considered to be better than what the story was really about.

    I like deep philosophical stories as well. Well I can say that I did enjoy Infinite's story I still would have preferred if it was a story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc. In fact that's the main reason why I got interested in Infinite. I watched the early trailers and I thought the story was going to be about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.

    I think most of the people that enjoy Infinite's story are people that like simplicity in their stories over complexity. That's really what Infinite's story was: it was a simple father-daughter story disguised as a complex story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.

    I think you're a fan of simple stories considering that you enjoyed The Last Guardian's story and seem to be interested in Disney films. I have to ask you thought, were you that interested in Infinite's story after watching the early trailers?

    As for Extra Credits, I'm pretty sure that they would have preferred if Infinite's story was about about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc. They do seem interested in that stuff. I mean look at Extra History.

    As for The Walking Dead, I think they found its story to live up to their expectations. Everyone expected The Walking Dead to jsut be a horror story about jump scares etc. However it ended up being a memorable father-daughter story so it ended up being a better story than advertised. I can see why they would go on about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I do like their Extra History series though, where that same arty farty approach is actually a great alternative to dry wikipedia articles.
    Did you ever try watching Crash Course on YouTube? They have both an American History and World History series that are depicted through cartoons. Crash Course is a pretty popular educational channel.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Not arguing with the looting mechanic, they do have a point there,
    I thought the looting mechanic made sense in Infinite. Remember Booker is heavily in debt and needs money. It makes sense for him to be as resourceful as possible even if it means searching through garbage bins. By the time he reaches Columbia, he's probably already been living off trash cans for a while. I mean look at his apartment at the end of the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Why do you think Torment would be GOTY material? Are you a fan of the story?
    I'm a fan of the original game. It has a really unique and memorable story. I think what's so notable about Planescape Torment is that it has pretty poor gameplay but so many people are willing to overlook that just because of the story. Very few games get treatment like that.

    I'm not sure how good the sequel's story will be. It releases the end of this week so I guess I'll have some idea by then. However I don't entirely trust reviewers when it comes to story. I think a lot of game reviewers don't have high standards for story so they call a lot of meh stories good. The most notable example of this is GTA V. It was praised for its story but the story was pretty forgettable.

  28. #3108
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Do you think the approval system in Dragon Age is competent enough to make decisions feel important? It's been a while since I've played the game so I don't remember clearly.
    Depends on the type of player. If a certain decision only affects the relationship with your companions and not much the plot itself (which is the vast majority of cases), a player who doesn't much care about the companions would not feel they are that important. But it works well for those who do care (which is pretty much BioWare's target audience), because the personal consequences can be quite drastic, like an outraged companion outright attacking you or things like that. I'd say it's as close to successfully mimicking the dynamics of human relationships in a video game as one can get right now, even if they don't usually affect the core of the story that much.

    Do you think the minimalist approach BioWare is taking with advertising Andromeda's story might be in response to what they did with Mass Effect 3? BioWare hyped Mass Effect 3's story a lot e.g. they spoke about how it had all these different endings but the differences were minor etc. In a way they set themselves up for a backlash when they didn't deliver on all of their promises. Maybe now they're talking very little about Andromeda's story because they don't want to set up anyone for a disappointment?
    Yeah, all the hush-hush definitely has something to do with their blunder with the ME3 hype. It looks like they learned from that particular mistake, which is a good thing. Even if Andromeda proves to be underwhelming, I don't expect a sh-tstorm of any kind.

    I think Trump may hold the record for the most misinformed and frankly uneducated head of state to ever exist in history.
    Sure, he talks a lot about things he knows nothing about (so a long list of things). But him being the worst of the worst is an overstatement. He just feels more prominent because all eyes are on him. As far as dumb leaders go, I doubt anyone would surpass Mao Zedong, or the majority of past and current African dictators. There's still plenty to choose from today. Mass murderer Duterte in the Philippines, clueless idiot Maduro from Venezuela, economic dumbass Modi in India, etc.

    I see your point but I think the main reason why Extra Credits didn't talk about Infinite's artsy parts is because they thought Infinite's story was underwhelming.
    I don't see how they would think that, unless spoken out loud. Just wasn't my impression.

    I'm not sure if you followed Infinite's marketing for its story but basically it made out Infinite to be a deep philosophical game about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc. However Infinite's story wasn't actually about any of those theses. It was actually a father-daughter story and it was disguised to be a story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.

    This is a problem in advertising stories. Usually writers don't want to give away what their story is about so when they advertise their stories they always present it in a misleading way. Levine didn't want to give away that Infinite was a father-daughter story so he made it out to be a deep philosophical game about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.

    I like deep philosophical stories as well. Well I can say that I did enjoy Infinite's story I still would have preferred if it was a story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc. In fact that's the main reason why I got interested in Infinite. I watched the early trailers and I thought the story was going to be about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.
    I did follow Infinite's marketing and it actually made me disinterested at first. The trailers were mostly about superficial spectacle and a companion with big breasts. A far shot from what I would have been intrigued by. I haven't seen hints of any meaningful commentary about anything, the setting looked like window dressing. It wasn't until the actual reviews that I changed my mind, seeing how the game itself changed.

    What I don't get, is why people wanted (and still want) to see a similar approach to nationalism, racism etc. in Infinite as BioShock 1 had with Objectivism. What deep and revolutionary message could a game (or any other medium at this point) could possibly have about these ages old subjects? Rapture had a massive advantage in that they introduced an ideology relatively unknown to the public (basically a fantasy). Before playing BioShock, I've never in my life even heard about Objectivism or Rand herself, for a long while I genuinely thought that Levine came up with all this just for the sake of a game. Real life Objectivism never really existed anywhere, and Rand was just not a culturally relevant figure in these commie parts it seems, unsurprisingly.

    What I mean is, it's easy to provide deep narrative insight into a theme that the majority of people are not familiar with, never experienced, and don't have a pre-defined opinion on. I can't imagine the same thing working with nationalism/jingoism or class struggles. Now that I think about it, BioShock 1 never really made a commentary on Objectivism either, just used it as a backdrop for the "illusion of choice" narrative.

    But what new can be said about the thing that repeats itself before our eyes in real life history over and over again? Everyone's heard about Nazi Germany, Communist uprisings, apartheid and religious bigotry. One doesn't even need school for that, there's Kunta Kinte, there's the entire Russian literature, there are the countless Holocaust stories. These are all mainstream and count as common knowledge. They even used mildly altered real-life propaganda posters in the game. What commentary or portrayal should Infinite have had about these? That they're bad and make people suffer? The game seems to cover those things well enough as is. Should have they offered the ultimate solution then? Since you also expected more focus on that, I ask you what you would have found satisfying in that matter. Honest question.

    The problem is that a lot of people consider a story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc to be more interesting than a father-daughter story. So, in essence, what Levine made out Infinite's story to be was actually considered to be better than what the story was really about.
    I'm not one of those people, and I was actually glad it turned out this way. The reason why I liked Infinite better than the original was the addition of that human storyline. Bio 1 was great, I enjoyed exploring its ideas and their presentation, but I never became really invested in its story. Jack was designed to be a cipher and all that, but it just didn't cut it for me. I didn't feel like I was walking in his shoes, instead he just felt like a character that wasn't there. A wasted opportunity with a background like his. I can't emotionally relate to a city, idea, or two mute hands. There were touching moments here and there with the Little Sisters and in the diaries, but other than that the game was rather impersonal. I much rather had Jack as the same defined character as Booker was. I know that most fans wouldn't agree, and it would weaken the metanarrative about player agency, but I'd take that trade-off for a more involving story that Jack's journey deserves.

    Infinite had those things, and an intriguing setting. If it was indeed simply a father-daughter story and nothing else, or the same thing with a 'meh' setting like The Last of Us, I would have passed on it. But interesting setting + emotional investment is my best case scenario in narrative games.

    I think most of the people that enjoy Infinite's story are people that like simplicity in their stories over complexity. That's really what Infinite's story was: it was a simple father-daughter story disguised as a complex story about nationalism, patriotism, religion, racism etc.
    Woah, I can't say I've heard anyone so far putting Infinite and "simplicity" in the same sentence before. I don't think people actually believe that (those who are not trolls or Bio 1 purists anyway). The approach to patriotism and co. isn't that complicated, true. Because at heart these are very simple ideas we all know already. Throw some quantum physics into the mix however, and things quickly start to get confusing in the timeline. I don't count myself as a stupid person, more like average or so, but I needed a good week and a second playthrough to really connect all the dots regarding this narrative. Even if the story is not entirely free of holes, I'd say that's still a pretty good indication of something's complexity.

    I think you're a fan of simple stories considering that you enjoyed The Last Guardian's story and seem to be interested in Disney films.
    It's true that I like simple stories as well, but that doesn't mean that's what I like exclusively. I just don't count complexity as the be-all-end-all measure of good stories. They are a nice plus though, and I do consider Infinite to be complex, which enhanced its enjoyability quite a bit. It's hard to tell whether I would have liked it the same with a more linear story.

    Did you ever try watching Crash Course on YouTube? They have both an American History and World History series that are depicted through cartoons. Crash Course is a pretty popular educational channel.
    Yeah, I watched all of those. While I liked the style, the episodes are short and not detailed enough for my tastes, just very hasty overviews. I'd watch an hour-long feature about each of those subjects. Extra History and other content makers fill a nice gap in that regard.

    I thought the looting mechanic made sense in Infinite. Remember Booker is heavily in debt and needs money. It makes sense for him to be as resourceful as possible even if it means searching through garbage bins. By the time he reaches Columbia, he's probably already been living off trash cans for a while. I mean look at his apartment at the end of the game.
    I do think it's nitpicking when people bring that up as a serious criticism, as it can be justified they way you just did. But as a game mechanic after the early game (by that point even the clumsiest players hoarded together a ton of money) it really is unnecessary and a bit out there. Booker sure doesn't care what the uptight Columbians might think about him being waist-deep in a bin, but would he really do the same in front his ward who knows damn well how full his wallet is? It's a bit of a stretch.

    I'm not sure how good the sequel's story will be. It releases the end of this week so I guess I'll have some idea by then. However I don't entirely trust reviewers when it comes to story. I think a lot of game reviewers don't have high standards for story so they call a lot of meh stories good. The most notable example of this is GTA V. It was praised for its story but the story was pretty forgettable.
    In GTA's defense, it would be near impossible to put together an above-average story in an anything-goes crime simulator. But yeah, the reviews still shouldn't praise them for it.

  29. #3109
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Depends on the type of player. If a certain decision only affects the relationship with your companions and not much the plot itself (which is the vast majority of cases), a player who doesn't much care about the companions would not feel they are that important. But it works well for those who do care (which is pretty much BioWare's target audience), because the personal consequences can be quite drastic, like an outraged companion outright attacking you or things like that. I'd say it's as close to successfully mimicking the dynamics of human relationships in a video game as one can get right now, even if they don't usually affect the core of the story that much.
    Did you play Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor? People consider its nemesis system to, so far, be the best at making character relationships with procedural generation. Of course it's limited in what it can do but it's enough to satisfy a fair number of people. The sequel Shadow of War was announced last week and it looks like they're adding a few things to the nemesis system.

    To be honest, Shadow of Mordor wasn't that great of a game. Other than the nemesis system, it was pretty similar to other action games like Assassin's Creed. The nemesis system also gets pretty 'meh' after a few playthroughs. However Shadow of Mordor was praised a lot when it released in 2014 because 2014 was a pretty weak year for games. There just wasn't much competition. However this year is different so I think it'll be interesting to see how well Shadow of War does compared ot its predecessor.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Yeah, all the hush-hush definitely has something to do with their blunder with the ME3 hype. It looks like they learned from that particular mistake, which is a good thing. Even if Andromeda proves to be underwhelming, I don't expect a sh-tstorm of any kind.
    Well ever since the game went gold, BioWare has been pumping out a lot of videos of Andromeda. The good thing is that since the game is done, we know that everything being advertised will actually be in the game we purchase. However rushing your advertising at the last minute isn't a very good marketing technique.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I did follow Infinite's marketing and it actually made me disinterested at first. The trailers were mostly about superficial spectacle and a companion with big breasts. A far shot from what I would have been intrigued by. I haven't seen hints of any meaningful commentary about anything, the setting looked like window dressing. It wasn't until the actual reviews that I changed my mind, seeing how the game itself changed.

    What I don't get, is why people wanted (and still want) to see a similar approach to nationalism, racism etc. in Infinite as BioShock 1 had with Objectivism. What deep and revolutionary message could a game (or any other medium at this point) could possibly have about these ages old subjects? Rapture had a massive advantage in that they introduced an ideology relatively unknown to the public (basically a fantasy). Before playing BioShock, I've never in my life even heard about Objectivism or Rand herself, for a long while I genuinely thought that Levine came up with all this just for the sake of a game. Real life Objectivism never really existed anywhere, and Rand was just not a culturally relevant figure in these commie parts it seems, unsurprisingly.

    What I mean is, it's easy to provide deep narrative insight into a theme that the majority of people are not familiar with, never experienced, and don't have a pre-defined opinion on. I can't imagine the same thing working with nationalism/jingoism or class struggles. Now that I think about it, BioShock 1 never really made a commentary on Objectivism either, just used it as a backdrop for the "illusion of choice" narrative.

    But what new can be said about the thing that repeats itself before our eyes in real life history over and over again? Everyone's heard about Nazi Germany, Communist uprisings, apartheid and religious bigotry. One doesn't even need school for that, there's Kunta Kinte, there's the entire Russian literature, there are the countless Holocaust stories. These are all mainstream and count as common knowledge. They even used mildly altered real-life propaganda posters in the game. What commentary or portrayal should Infinite have had about these? That they're bad and make people suffer? The game seems to cover those things well enough as is. Should have they offered the ultimate solution then? Since you also expected more focus on that, I ask you what you would have found satisfying in that matter. Honest question.
    I was hoping for an in-depth explanation for why people embrace things like racism, authoritarianism etc. We usually only get given vague reasons for why e.g. they were brainwashed etc. I thought it would be interesting if a game could provide us with a deeper reason.

    I think people consider BioShock 1's commentary about choice to also be commentary about objectivism. I mean when you think of it, objectivism is just free choice taken to its extreme. It also depicted a hidden protected society of objectivism falling apart so one can argue that the game was trying to prove that there was no way of creating a sustainable objectivist society.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Woah, I can't say I've heard anyone so far putting Infinite and "simplicity" in the same sentence before. I don't think people actually believe that (those who are not trolls or Bio 1 purists anyway). The approach to patriotism and co. isn't that complicated, true. Because at heart these are very simple ideas we all know already. Throw some quantum physics into the mix however, and things quickly start to get confusing in the timeline. I don't count myself as a stupid person, more like average or so, but I needed a good week and a second playthrough to really connect all the dots regarding this narrative. Even if the story is not entirely free of holes, I'd say that's still a pretty good indication of something's complexity.
    By simplicity I mean simplicity in messages. The messages of Infinite's story were pretty simple because it was a father-daughter story. Sure there were parallel worlds etc but they didn't provide any profound commentary on the concept of parallel worlds. The parallel worlds just supported the overall message of the father-daughter story by showing what would happen to Booker if he made different decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    It's true that I like simple stories as well, but that doesn't mean that's what I like exclusively. I just don't count complexity as the be-all-end-all measure of good stories. They are a nice plus though, and I do consider Infinite to be complex, which enhanced its enjoyability quite a bit. It's hard to tell whether I would have liked it the same with a more linear story.
    You like Hercule Poirot stories so I'm sure you enjoy complex stories as well. I'm almost done with all the Hercule Poirot stories. I have to say, I think out of all the detective stories I've read, the Hercule Poirot stories are probably the most complex. Christie is really good at weaving a complex mystery.

    The only real flaw I see in her writing is that sometimes she relies on convoluted plot devices. Her most popular one is the criminal disfigures the head of a corpse and tricks everyone into thinking that the corpse is the dead body of their missing loved one. As if family members only know their relatives by their face. Also didn't finger printing exist back then?

    I've been watching the TV series with David Suchet as well. The acting is great but they really messed up some of the best stories. I thought their adaption of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was pretty disappointing. They just made so many changes that took away from the charm of the novel.

    Also I think the Uncharted games have stories that are a nice balance between simplicity and complexity. Contrary to popular opinion, I do think there is complexity in the Uncharted game's stories. What do you think of the Uncharted game's stories in terms of complexity?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    In GTA's defense, it would be near impossible to put together an above-average story in an anything-goes crime simulator. But yeah, the reviews still shouldn't praise them for it.
    I think a big problem with many reviewers (especially in the game industry) is that they have trouble not being influenced by nostalgia. Usually I think when they review games in video game series that have had high scores in the past, they feel obligated to give the latest additions high scores as well.

    A good example of this would be the recent Zelda games. The first few Zelda games were given high praise because of how innovative they were for their time e.g. Ocarina of Time introduced the save-the-game feature. However I haven't seen the recent Zelda games do much of anything that other games haven't done already. The new Zelda game that was also a launch title for the Nintendo Switch also got really good reviews but I don't remember seeing anything innovative in that game when I watched previews of it. I suspect its just the reviewers' nostalgia again and that's why I haven't gotten a Switch just yet. Are you planning on getting a Switch soon?

  30. #3110
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    I did and it looks really damn good. It looks like they have more freedom this time to tell the story they want to tell without worrying of censorship( actual red blood, seemingly more violent, animation quality improvement). Do we know who is going to voice Aku?
    So what did you think of the first episode of the new season of Samurai Jack? I thought it was great. It was true to the earlier seasons and felt like an actual continuation of the story. It's way better than all those other revivals.

  31. #3111
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    14
    I could never really enjoy Dishonored the stupid forced morality choices pissed me off. It was near impossible to stealth thru the game without killing a guard. I like other games like Far Cry, Fallout and Skyrim a lot better.

  32. #3112
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by socalgamer View Post
    I could never really enjoy Dishonored the stupid forced morality choices pissed me off. It was near impossible to stealth thru the game without killing a guard. I like other games like Far Cry, Fallout and Skyrim a lot better.
    Stealth in Dishonored is pretty easy as there are certain routes and abilitites specifically designed for lurking. I'm not a particularly skilled gamer and still got the Ghost achievement no sweat. If there's a viable option in the game to go all out then what's the problem here? Far Cry and co. don't put half the effort behind stealth, they just have a big dumb open world that happen to have lots of covers.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Did you play Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor? People consider its nemesis system to, so far, be the best at making character relationships with procedural generation. Of course it's limited in what it can do but it's enough to satisfy a fair number of people. The sequel Shadow of War was announced last week and it looks like they're adding a few things to the nemesis system.

    To be honest, Shadow of Mordor wasn't that great of a game. Other than the nemesis system, it was pretty similar to other action games like Assassin's Creed. The nemesis system also gets pretty 'meh' after a few playthroughs. However Shadow of Mordor was praised a lot when it released in 2014 because 2014 was a pretty weak year for games. There just wasn't much competition. However this year is different so I think it'll be interesting to see how well Shadow of War does compared ot its predecessor.
    I played it, thought it was an overall mediocre game based around one particularly good idea. The Nemesis system was easily its best feature, I think the devs have a right to be proud of that if nothing else. I can see that mechanic used by other open world games in the future, I'm actually surprised that no one else jumped on it so far.
    That said, I agree that it does get old fairly quickly and the game has little else to offer. I think the system's perks are also its biggest drawbacks. Random Orcs with entirely randomized features will never be as compelling as more traditional, scripted foes with unique designs. It also doesn't help that they were drawn from a limited pool, and encountering and killing Uzuk, the Terrible (or whatever) 3 times can have him with 3 entirely different personalities in a single playthrough.

    But who knows, maybe if they improve on the Nemesis with more variety and more scripted characters thrown in like Ratbag, they'll craft a more enjoyable campaign in the sequel. My interest in said sequel largely depends on that. A tad more interesting setting wouldn't hurt either, I mean Mordor wasn't exactly known for its many memorable postcard locations.

    I faintly remember you liking this game though, its storytelling in particular. Did you change your mind?


    Well ever since the game went gold, BioWare has been pumping out a lot of videos of Andromeda. The good thing is that since the game is done, we know that everything being advertised will actually be in the game we purchase. However rushing your advertising at the last minute isn't a very good marketing technique.
    They're working with an established brand here that will be guaranteed to be covered by all kinds of game media, I don't think they need more advertising than the minimum. I think this is preferable to the bloated hype.


    I was hoping for an in-depth explanation for why people embrace things like racism, authoritarianism etc. We usually only get given vague reasons for why e.g. they were brainwashed etc. I thought it would be interesting if a game could provide us with a deeper reason.
    They did explain, just not with spoonfeeding. Comstock himself says in a voxophone how the slurs regarding his Native American ancestry have driven him to denial and violence (not unlike a certain Adolf we know). Sure, it's not a centerpiece monologue like Ryan's, but it's there. The propaganda regarding the Irish, the petty remarks of white folk in Battleship Bay, and the Finkton scenes all paint a pretty clear picture how artificially marginalizing certain groups can pave the way for their exploitation that would grant a priviliged upper class a free and easy life. It's not spelled out for the player, but I personally think if it would be then it'd be a bit too in-your-face.

    I think people consider BioShock 1's commentary about choice to also be commentary about objectivism. I mean when you think of it, objectivism is just free choice taken to its extreme. It also depicted a hidden protected society of objectivism falling apart so one can argue that the game was trying to prove that there was no way of creating a sustainable objectivist society.
    But if the game intended to do that, they would have had to create an actual Objectivist society in the first place, which Rapture wasn't. There are plenty of threads about that in the Bio 1 subforum, where real life Rand enthusiasts vehemently criticize the game's depiction of the ideology. The city may have started out faithfully to the idea, but Ryan quickly deteoriated from that path by disposing of Fontaine and granting special powers to himself and his buddies. This happened way before the game starts, and even before Burial at Sea, thus we never actually see how a real Objectivist system should look like. It makes for a good story, but hardly an effective commentary, if that was intended. Irrational could get away with this of course, because again, the vast majority of people had no clue what Objectivism even was (including myself). I don't blame them for this, I think it was a smart choice for a setting for this precise reason.


    By simplicity I mean simplicity in messages. The messages of Infinite's story were pretty simple because it was a father-daughter story. Sure there were parallel worlds etc but they didn't provide any profound commentary on the concept of parallel worlds. The parallel worlds just supported the overall message of the father-daughter story by showing what would happen to Booker if he made different decisions.
    I think that the fragility of existence, the butterfly effect on one's choices, paradoxically combined with the reprise of the "Illusion of Choice" were profound enough, but to each their own.

    You like Hercule Poirot stories so I'm sure you enjoy complex stories as well. I'm almost done with all the Hercule Poirot stories. I have to say, I think out of all the detective stories I've read, the Hercule Poirot stories are probably the most complex. Christie is really good at weaving a complex mystery.

    The only real flaw I see in her writing is that sometimes she relies on convoluted plot devices. Her most popular one is the criminal disfigures the head of a corpse and tricks everyone into thinking that the corpse is the dead body of their missing loved one. As if family members only know their relatives by their face. Also didn't finger printing exist back then?
    They did, and yes, I also disliked her tendency to pull things out of her bum for the sake of extra confusion. That's the main reason I preferred her shorter stories.

    I've been watching the TV series with David Suchet as well. The acting is great but they really messed up some of the best stories. I thought their adaption of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was pretty disappointing. They just made so many changes that took away from the charm of the novel.
    I'm one of the few people who didn't enjoy Ackroyd that much, I preferred the adaptation, as in almost every case in the show. I think their changes usually improved the originals (with a few exceptions like Poirot's religion). But yeah, it's a legit complaint from the fans of those stories. It's a divisive subject.

    Also I think the Uncharted games have stories that are a nice balance between simplicity and complexity. Contrary to popular opinion, I do think there is complexity in the Uncharted game's stories. What do you think of the Uncharted game's stories in terms of complexity?
    Well, I think they were all pretty straightforward. I liked that they started in medias res in the 2nd and the story was a bit less linear due to the time hops. Other than that, I don't think that complexity was an aspect they specifically focused on. What do you have in mind?

    I think a big problem with many reviewers (especially in the game industry) is that they have trouble not being influenced by nostalgia. Usually I think when they review games in video game series that have had high scores in the past, they feel obligated to give the latest additions high scores as well.

    A good example of this would be the recent Zelda games. The first few Zelda games were given high praise because of how innovative they were for their time e.g. Ocarina of Time introduced the save-the-game feature. However I haven't seen the recent Zelda games do much of anything that other games haven't done already. The new Zelda game that was also a launch title for the Nintendo Switch also got really good reviews but I don't remember seeing anything innovative in that game when I watched previews of it. I suspect its just the reviewers' nostalgia again and that's why I haven't gotten a Switch just yet. Are you planning on getting a Switch soon?
    Not planning on it. I currently don't have the means to buy the games I'd really want to play (I probably won't be able to get Andromeda for a few good months after the release), much less a console for the sake of a game I'm only vaguely interested in. I'm not much of a Zelda expert, but from gameplay footages I've seen I don't get what is supposed to be so mindblowing here. Breath of the Wild seems to suffer from the same "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" kind of problem as most open worlds these days. It sure looks pretty, though.
    I see the nostalgia effect in the reviews that you mention. Jim Sterling recently reviewed it and dared to give it a 7/10 (still a good score), and all hell broke loose among fanboys. People actually DDoS attacked his page, lol.

    Are you getting the game?

  33. #3113
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    14
    Yeah but the ability for crafting and riding cool vehicles in Far Cry 3 was a lot of fun! I could never figure out the best way to stealth my way in Dishonored.

  34. #3114
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    So what did you think of the first episode of the new season of Samurai Jack? I thought it was great. It was true to the earlier seasons and felt like an actual continuation of the story. It's way better than all those other revivals.
    I thought it was great as well. Episode 2 looks to be even better. By the way, have you seen Logan or the x-men show Legion yet. Both are really good, and are refreshing comic book adaptations.

  35. #3115
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    14
    Once you get used to the game mechanics, Dishonored is a lot of fun aside from the crappy forced morality system. Kill animations and choice of assassination techniques is a ton of fun.

  36. #3116
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I played it, thought it was an overall mediocre game based around one particularly good idea. The Nemesis system was easily its best feature, I think the devs have a right to be proud of that if nothing else. I can see that mechanic used by other open world games in the future, I'm actually surprised that no one else jumped on it so far.
    That said, I agree that it does get old fairly quickly and the game has little else to offer. I think the system's perks are also its biggest drawbacks. Random Orcs with entirely randomized features will never be as compelling as more traditional, scripted foes with unique designs. It also doesn't help that they were drawn from a limited pool, and encountering and killing Uzuk, the Terrible (or whatever) 3 times can have him with 3 entirely different personalities in a single playthrough.

    But who knows, maybe if they improve on the Nemesis with more variety and more scripted characters thrown in like Ratbag, they'll craft a more enjoyable campaign in the sequel. My interest in said sequel largely depends on that. A tad more interesting setting wouldn't hurt either, I mean Mordor wasn't exactly known for its many memorable postcard locations.

    I faintly remember you liking this game though, its storytelling in particular. Did you change your mind?
    I remember Ratbag. He was pretty funny and probably the most memorable orc in the game.

    As for liking Shadow of Mordor, yes I liked it a lot on release but in hindsight I think it was mainly because I was disappointed with 2014 in general. There just were very few good games that came out that year.

    I thought the story of Shadow of Mordor was true to the spirit of Tolkein-verse. However it still could've been better. I don't think any game has ever produced a very good story for The Lord of the Rings yet. I think you need a very capable writer to pull it off. Maybe BioWare could have done it in their early years as they did write great stories for other big franchises like Star Wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    They're working with an established brand here that will be guaranteed to be covered by all kinds of game media, I don't think they need more advertising than the minimum. I think this is preferable to the bloated hype.
    Reviews just came out and they're mixed to positive. Looks like BioWare continues to go downhill ever since it was bought by EA. Most reviewers said the story is weak which is a shame because BioWare is supposed to be good with their stories. Did BioWare lose their good writers or something? I've felt they haven't written a decent story since Dragon Age 2?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    They did explain, just not with spoonfeeding. Comstock himself says in a voxophone how the slurs regarding his Native American ancestry have driven him to denial and violence (not unlike a certain Adolf we know). Sure, it's not a centerpiece monologue like Ryan's, but it's there. The propaganda regarding the Irish, the petty remarks of white folk in Battleship Bay, and the Finkton scenes all paint a pretty clear picture how artificially marginalizing certain groups can pave the way for their exploitation that would grant a priviliged upper class a free and easy life. It's not spelled out for the player, but I personally think if it would be then it'd be a bit too in-your-face.
    I mean more that I want to see this happening in real time. Columbia isn't a dead city. It's alive. So I want to see things like schools which teach people to be bigots and actually see people in classes learning stuff like that.

    With Columbia, everything is already set and we just sort of get peaks of how it got there. I don't think it was necessary to do that because Columbia is a living city unlike Rapture.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    But if the game intended to do that, they would have had to create an actual Objectivist society in the first place, which Rapture wasn't. There are plenty of threads about that in the Bio 1 subforum, where real life Rand enthusiasts vehemently criticize the game's depiction of the ideology. The city may have started out faithfully to the idea, but Ryan quickly deteoriated from that path by disposing of Fontaine and granting special powers to himself and his buddies. This happened way before the game starts, and even before Burial at Sea, thus we never actually see how a real Objectivist system should look like. It makes for a good story, but hardly an effective commentary, if that was intended. Irrational could get away with this of course, because again, the vast majority of people had no clue what Objectivism even was (including myself). I don't blame them for this, I think it was a smart choice for a setting for this precise reason.
    I think some people understood that to be the point. It's practically impossible to create an Objectivist society. You can try. You can get close. But ultimately you'll fail and all hell will break lose.

    What would you consider to be an effective commentary on Objectivism in the game? Seeing Rapture alive?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    They did, and yes, I also disliked her tendency to pull things out of her bum for the sake of extra confusion. That's the main reason I preferred her shorter stories.
    I like complexity so I don't mind if mystery writers want to make the story more confusing. However they have to do it in a believable way which is usually difficult to pull off without resorting to convoluted plot devices.

    I'm not as big of a fan of her short stories because they tend to lack in complexity compared to her novels. Out of Christie's novels, which one would you say you like the best?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I'm one of the few people who didn't enjoy Ackroyd that much, I preferred the adaptation, as in almost every case in the show. I think their changes usually improved the originals (with a few exceptions like Poirot's religion). But yeah, it's a legit complaint from the fans of those stories. It's a divisive subject.
    Why didn't you like Ackroyd? I thought the twist in it was a little convoluted but still fairly plausible.

    Also have you tried any other of Christie's works? Christie wrote a lot of popular stories. She wrote 'And then there were none' which is the world's best selling mystery. I finished it last week but I didn't think it was that good. Honestly I thought some of her Hercule Poirot books were better but it looks like most people disagree with me on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Well, I think they were all pretty straightforward. I liked that they started in medias res in the 2nd and the story was a bit less linear due to the time hops. Other than that, I don't think that complexity was an aspect they specifically focused on. What do you have in mind?
    I'm mostly referring to the little things. For example in Uncharted 4, how did Elena find out that Nate was in King's Bay when Nate was lying to her all the time that he was in Malaysia?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Not planning on it. I currently don't have the means to buy the games I'd really want to play (I probably won't be able to get Andromeda for a few good months after the release), much less a console for the sake of a game I'm only vaguely interested in. I'm not much of a Zelda expert, but from gameplay footages I've seen I don't get what is supposed to be so mindblowing here. Breath of the Wild seems to suffer from the same "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" kind of problem as most open worlds these days. It sure looks pretty, though.
    I see the nostalgia effect in the reviews that you mention. Jim Sterling recently reviewed it and dared to give it a 7/10 (still a good score), and all hell broke loose among fanboys. People actually DDoS attacked his page, lol.

    Are you getting the game?
    My friend has Breath of the Wild. I think I'll wait for him to finish it and then ask him some specific questions before deciding to buy it.

    Also it looks like Andromeda got lower than expected reviews. Do you think that will impact on your decision to buy it later rather than sooner?

    Quote Originally Posted by socalgamer View Post
    Yeah but the ability for crafting and riding cool vehicles in Far Cry 3 was a lot of fun! I could never figure out the best way to stealth my way in Dishonored.
    I don't think there's supposed to be a 'best' way to stealth in Dishonoured. I think the game developers wanted to make a game where you had a bunch of equally viable options for stealth. This design carried onto Dishonoured 2 where you had the choice to play either as Emily or Cortez, two assassins with different but equally viable abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by snyderman View Post
    I thought it was great as well. Episode 2 looks to be even better. By the way, have you seen Logan or the x-men show Legion yet. Both are really good, and are refreshing comic book adaptations.
    Episode 2 was great as well. Looks like Episode 3 will be the episode that Tartakovsky said would be about Jack lamenting about finally killing a real person for the first time in years.

    Also the voice actor for Aku (Greg Baldwin) is the same guy who voiced Iroh in Avataar after Mako died after Season 2. He was the obvious choice for voicing Aku since he took over another role that Mako left open. I wonder why Tartakovsky decided to hide that from us?

    I haven't seen Legion yet. I tend to not watch shows while they'r on air. I usually wait until their entire season is released and then I watch it all together. Do you know if Legion is linked with the movies or is it set in a different universe?

    I liked Logan as a stand alone movie but I didn't like it as a sequel to the epilogue of Days of Future Past. IMO Days of Future Past had a very satisfying ending with all the X-Men in the future alive and happy. However in Logan we find out:

    Professor X had an episode which killed all the other X-Men. This isn't explicitly stated but it's strongly implied. That's why he and Wolverine are the only X-Men we see in the movie. All the other X-Men (Jean, Cyclops, Storm etc) presumably perished in that episode that Professor X had.

    TBH I was very disappointed to learn that. I mean the whole point of Days of Future Past was to create a bright future for the X-Men. Then Logan comes along and creates an even darker future than the one left at the end of X-Men 3.

  37. #3117
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    14
    Well I just finished Dishonored and aside from the lame forced morality chaos system, it was a lot of fun! Dark vision reminded me a lot of the stealth vision in Batman Arkham games. Blink was good skill unique to the game as well in spite of the quirks getting it to work right. I really liked the creative ways of killing stuff in it. Windblast, rat swarms and bend time were so much fun! It was quite bloody and never played a game with such over the top ways of pulling off different ways to take down targets.

  38. #3118
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    Reviews just came out and they're mixed to positive. Looks like BioWare continues to go downhill ever since it was bought by EA. Most reviewers said the story is weak which is a shame because BioWare is supposed to be good with their stories. Did BioWare lose their good writers or something? I've felt they haven't written a decent story since Dragon Age 2?
    Yeah, Andromeda was mostly written by the leftover staff, a lot of the old guard left the studio recently. I suppose its issues are related to that, though the reviews are all over the place. There's no excuse for the animation, I'm a bit bummed about that. But regarding the story and characters, one reviewer says A and another says B, so I guess I'll have to judge myself.

    Thankfully Dragon Age's overall arcs and lore have already been written while they were making the first game, so there's less to screw up there and it's being done by a different team anyway. But yeah, I'm starting to worry about BioWare.

    I mean more that I want to see this happening in real time. Columbia isn't a dead city. It's alive. So I want to see things like schools which teach people to be bigots and actually see people in classes learning stuff like that.

    With Columbia, everything is already set and we just sort of get peaks of how it got there. I don't think it was necessary to do that because Columbia is a living city unlike Rapture.
    True, but I think it would have been a bit redundant. If we had gotten a Columbia themed DLC, that would have been a fine place to explore that further, but it's just not essential to the story the same way that Burial at Sea's exposition of the living Rapture wasn't essential to BioShock 1's story. Neither game was really about the ideologies they used as a backdrop, so holding it against Infinite but not the first game is sort of a double standard imo.

    What would you consider to be an effective commentary on Objectivism in the game? Seeing Rapture alive?
    The first game started strong with Ryan's monologue. It got the general idea through effectively. Other than that, there's not actually that much explanation going on aside from the odd radio diary about charging money for clean air and such. I think Burial at Sea added a lot on that front. Prostitutes selling themselves openly "just like any other commodity", contracts about sex, gay couples walking around, plasmids being actively used to improve people's performance at work, brainwashing kindergarten programs, etc.
    It paints a picture of a system that has its merits, but is grossly detached from reality and human nature at the same time.

    I'm not as big of a fan of her short stories because they tend to lack in complexity compared to her novels. Out of Christie's novels, which one would you say you like the best?
    Death on the Nile is perhaps my second favorite. I think it's one of the few lengthier ones where I didn't feel the twists to be contrived. It also has a nice setting, and Poirot is being in the middle of things again, rather than being an outsider. I personally found And Then There Were None to be her best work, more on that below.

    Why didn't you like Ackroyd? I thought the twist in it was a little convoluted but still fairly plausible.
    One reason was the convoluted twist. The other was that I generally don't like unreliable narrators. I respect the effort that goes into writing with this technique, it takes skill, it's just not that fun to read. I understand why most feel the opposite way though.

    Also have you tried any other of Christie's works? Christie wrote a lot of popular stories. She wrote 'And then there were none' which is the world's best selling mystery. I finished it last week but I didn't think it was that good. Honestly I thought some of her Hercule Poirot books were better but it looks like most people disagree with me on that.
    I think it's popular for a reason and I also found it a very entertaining story, also unusual for its time (I still have an old copy with the original title "Ten Little N-words",lol). It has a lot going for it: standalone story not requiring preexisting knowledge of any character, easily adaptable to theater, constant tension, lot of foreshadowing, lot of shady figures, elusive villain, moral dilemmas, big twist, impactful ending. What I found most intriguing about it, is that the reader is never sure who to root for, or if to root at all, even without an unreliable narrator. It was Christie's personal favorite, and also the one she found the most difficult to write in her life. I can see why.

    I'm mostly referring to the little things. For example in Uncharted 4, how did Elena find out that Nate was in King's Bay when Nate was lying to her all the time that he was in Malaysia?
    My first thought would be lazy writing. Sure, she could easily find out that he lied to her just by asking his boss, and she being a journalist with contacts could track his phone or whatever. It's never addressed however, so if it's indeed as trivial as this, why not crack a one-liner about it when she finds him? If it's something more witty than that, why didn't they include it? To be honest U4's plot already lost me with placing Elena into nagging housewife trope who just doesn't want her husband to have fun, how that's not even the actual case, and how Nate acts like he doesn't know her at all after years of adventuring together and he has to lie about his lost brother because reasons, and how we all know how this is going to end right after the first 5 minutes.

    Also it looks like Andromeda got lower than expected reviews. Do you think that will impact on your decision to buy it later rather than sooner?
    I planned to buy it months later anyway, so hopefully it's gonna be patched up properly by then. It's unlikely to be my new sweetheart at this point, but I think I'll have fun with it nevertheless.

  39. #3119
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Yeah, Andromeda was mostly written by the leftover staff, a lot of the old guard left the studio recently. I suppose its issues are related to that, though the reviews are all over the place. There's no excuse for the animation, I'm a bit bummed about that. But regarding the story and characters, one reviewer says A and another says B, so I guess I'll have to judge myself.
    I don't think I've seen any positive reviews regarding Andromeda's story and characters. Can you link me to some?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Thankfully Dragon Age's overall arcs and lore have already been written while they were making the first game, so there's less to screw up there and it's being done by a different team anyway. But yeah, I'm starting to worry about BioWare.
    By 'overall arcs' do you mean overall character arcs? So you think what they did with Morrigan in Inquisition was planned out early on? Do you think the returning characters in Inquisition were done justice with their character arcs? TBH I felt that the returning characters were more interesting than any of the new ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    The first game started strong with Ryan's monologue. It got the general idea through effectively. Other than that, there's not actually that much explanation going on aside from the odd radio diary about charging money for clean air and such. I think Burial at Sea added a lot on that front. Prostitutes selling themselves openly "just like any other commodity", contracts about sex, gay couples walking around, plasmids being actively used to improve people's performance at work, brainwashing kindergarten programs, etc.
    It paints a picture of a system that has its merits, but is grossly detached from reality and human nature at the same time.
    So you think Burial at Sea did a better job of exploring objectivism than BioShock 1 did?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Death on the Nile is perhaps my second favorite. I think it's one of the few lengthier ones where I didn't feel the twists to be contrived. It also has a nice setting, and Poirot is being in the middle of things again, rather than being an outsider. I personally found And Then There Were None to be her best work, more on that below.
    Death on the Nile is pretty popular among Christie's novels but I'm not sure why. It seems to be a pretty straightforward mystery to me. There isn't any big twist to it as far as I can tell. Do you have any idea why so many people seem to like it?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I think it's popular for a reason and I also found it a very entertaining story, also unusual for its time (I still have an old copy with the original title "Ten Little N-words",lol). It has a lot going for it: standalone story not requiring preexisting knowledge of any character, easily adaptable to theater, constant tension, lot of foreshadowing, lot of shady figures, elusive villain, moral dilemmas, big twist, impactful ending. What I found most intriguing about it, is that the reader is never sure who to root for, or if to root at all, even without an unreliable narrator. It was Christie's personal favorite, and also the one she found the most difficult to write in her life. I can see why.
    It's true that 'And then there were none' is a stand alone story but most detective stories are stand alone even if they use returning characters. Most detective stories are self contained and usually wrap up all their plot points in one novel. However I do think it's possible that those not very familiar with the genre may not be aware of this and think that they won't be able to understand a detective story without reading the previous installments.

    Didn't you find any of the plot devices in 'And then there were none' to be convoluted?

    I thought the culprit in 'And then there were none' felt thinly written but I guess that's a criticism which can be leveled against many detective stories. One thing I dislike about detective stories is that they seem to have the most underdeveloped villains ever. They're just people who kill someone for some reason, pretend they don't for most of the novel and then get caught.

    Their reasons for killing aren't really deep or anything either. I think every detective story's villain's motive is always something to do with money, love or revenge. It's very difficult for me to find a crime novel where the motive for the crime doesn't relate to those features. I wonder how realistic this is. Are most crimes committed due to love, money or revenge?

    I will give the culprit in 'And then there were none' some credit as his motive had nothing to do with the above 3 features. However his motive wasn't really that deep either. He was just a crazy guy who wanted to kill people to prove some point to himself.

    I think the reader not knowing who to root for in 'And then there were none' didn't work for me personally. I like my detective stories to have a likeable detective character that I can root for. Somebody who's really smart and insightful. None of the characters in 'And then there were none' fit this criteria so I guess that's one possible reason why I didn't like the novel as much as others.

    Also where did you hear that 'And then there were none' was Christie's personal favourite? According to Wikipedia, Christie's favourites were 'Crooked House' and 'Ordeal by Innocence'. I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information (they haven't cited where they got 'Crooked House' and 'Ordeal by Innocence' being Christie's favourites from lol). So if you have some more reliable information then I'd like to see it.

    Also what do you think about the film adaptions of 'And then there were none'? I watched the 1945 about a week ago. I liked it mostly but in the end they decided to change the ending and make it a happy ending which really takes away from how dark the story was supposed to be. I've heard that a lot of adaptions of 'And then there were none' changed their ending to make the story more happy.

    Also are you aware that BBC One released their own adaption of 'And then there were none' a little over a year ago? I heard they changed some things but I also heard that they kept the ending. I'm thinking of watching it. Have you seen it? If so then what did you think of it? Which adaption of 'And then there were none' do you think is the best?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    My first thought would be lazy writing. Sure, she could easily find out that he lied to her just by asking his boss, and she being a journalist with contacts could track his phone or whatever. It's never addressed however, so if it's indeed as trivial as this, why not crack a one-liner about it when she finds him? If it's something more witty than that, why didn't they include it?
    I think there is enough information to deduce how Elena figured it out but it's really subtle and takes a close look at the characters.

    Basically I think Elena found Nate the same way that Rafe found him: she tracked the GPS on his phone. I'm not sure how exactly the GPS tracking software is supposed to work in the Uncharted-verse but I think you need to first need to connect with someone's phone while making a call before you can track them. I base this on how Rafe found Nate when he was calling him on the phone.

    Similarly I think we can extrapolate when Elena found Nate's location. During the game, Nate makes a number of calls to Elena but I think the call in which Elena finds out that Nate is lying to her is the one that's made when Nate first arrives in King's Bay. During that call we see Elena talking to Nate over the phone. Then she looks at her laptop and starts crying.

    Why does she cry? Elena says that she's going to buy a ticket so people would first assume that Elena was looking up ticket prices. However I don't see why ticket prices would make Elena cry.

    So instead I think what really happened was that prior to this call Elena had suspected that Nate was lying to her about where he was. Thus she set up some software or something on her laptop to track the GPS in Nate's phone during his next call. Elena was lying about buying a plane ticket. She just said that to stop Nate from figuring out that she was tracking him. She was actually looking up Nate's location on her laptop. When she saw that he was in Africa instead of Malaysia, she realised that he had lied to her and she started crying.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    To be honest U4's plot already lost me with placing Elena into nagging housewife trope who just doesn't want her husband to have fun, how that's not even the actual case, and how Nate acts like he doesn't know her at all after years of adventuring together and he has to lie about his lost brother because reasons, and how we all know how this is going to end right after the first 5 minutes.
    I just think they wanted to get Elena out of the way in the early game so they could develop Nate's relationship with Sam. Same thing with Sully. Apparently Sam and Sully are supposed to be on bad terms but I saw no reason why that should be the case. Sam and Sully are so similar. They both smoke, hunt treasure, chase women etc. How could they not get along?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I planned to buy it months later anyway, so hopefully it's gonna be patched up properly by then. It's unlikely to be my new sweetheart at this point, but I think I'll have fun with it nevertheless.
    Any other games you have in mind for Game of the Year if not Andromeda?

  40. #3120
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    I don't think I've seen any positive reviews regarding Andromeda's story and characters. Can you link me to some?
    Polygon's review comes to mind. Eurogamer and some others said the cast was a "mixed bag", with some characters stronger than the rest.

    By 'overall arcs' do you mean overall character arcs? So you think what they did with Morrigan in Inquisition was planned out early on?
    Yes, story arcs as well as character arcs. Some characters like Morrigan (who is admittedly the former lead writer's sweetheart) get more attention (maybe even too much compared to others) and did get every detail to them planned from the get-go but those are just a select few. I believe with some of the newer ones it was mostly their function that was already set in stone and not much their design itself. For example in Inquisition I think it was predetermined that a treacherous Elven deity in disguise with a big role in the story will be one of the player's companions, but the name "Solas" or his exact abilities and looks were only worked out during development.

    Do you think the returning characters in Inquisition were done justice with their character arcs? TBH I felt that the returning characters were more interesting than any of the new ones.
    Depends. I think some were weaker than others (the returning Varric didn't really add anything and Vivienne could have used more depth) but most of them were good. The banter between them is certainly entertaining by itself. They just didn't have as much screentime yet as Morrigan or Leliana did who will be slowly phasing out at this point to give way for the new returners like Solas.

    So you think Burial at Sea did a better job of exploring objectivism than BioShock 1 did?
    Yeah. The time it is set in provided a better opportunity for that. After all, it's easier and more involving to actually show teleporting waiters just doing their job than listening to some rant about it in the umpteenth audio diary.

    Death on the Nile is pretty popular among Christie's novels but I'm not sure why. It seems to be a pretty straightforward mystery to me. There isn't any big twist to it as far as I can tell. Do you have any idea why so many people seem to like it?
    I suppose the same reason I do. The characters are enclosed into a tight space and no one - including our detective - is really safe, which makes things more exciting. The solution is complex enough, yet not so convoluted. The ending is also one of Poirot's more humane moments, where he lets the busted couple keep a hidden second pistol they could commit suicide with despite knowing about it.

    It's true that 'And then there were none' is a stand alone story but most detective stories are stand alone even if they use returning characters. Most detective stories are self contained and usually wrap up all their plot points in one novel. However I do think it's possible that those not very familiar with the genre may not be aware of this and think that they won't be able to understand a detective story without reading the previous installments.
    Maybe it's that. Maybe it's the sense that they might be missing out and don't know the protagonist well enough to feel connected. In 'And Then There Were None' one knows for sure that they're on the same page as everyone else, from start to finish.

    Didn't you find any of the plot devices in 'And then there were none' to be convoluted?
    No, I think they built up tension really well. It's a bit of a stretch that a single old man could execute this labirynthine scheme so flawlessly and so stealthily, but it doesn't go beyond the usual exaggerations of the genre.

    I thought the culprit in 'And then there were none' felt thinly written but I guess that's a criticism which can be leveled against many detective stories. One thing I dislike about detective stories is that they seem to have the most underdeveloped villains ever. They're just people who kill someone for some reason, pretend they don't for most of the novel and then get caught.

    I will give the culprit in 'And then there were none' some credit as his motive had nothing to do with the above 3 features. However his motive wasn't really that deep either. He was just a crazy guy who wanted to kill people to prove some point to himself.
    I think the Judge character is better in this aspect than most. His motives were not material or even vengeful. He's a vigilante with a questionable sense of morality and perfect kill score, plus he never gets caught or even suspected. Unusual for a Christie novel.

    Their reasons for killing aren't really deep or anything either. I think every detective story's villain's motive is always something to do with money, love or revenge. It's very difficult for me to find a crime novel where the motive for the crime doesn't relate to those features. I wonder how realistic this is. Are most crimes committed due to love, money or revenge?
    In real life, it's mostly the first two, yeah. There are also the random mass shootings and terrorist attacks, but none of those tend to have complex motives either. Political murders do, but that would be another genre. I think most detective stories can exist only in fiction. Real murderers rarely go through all the trouble of intricately planning the crime, especially in the time of easily attainable firearms.

    Also where did you hear that 'And then there were none' was Christie's personal favourite? According to Wikipedia, Christie's favourites were 'Crooked House' and 'Ordeal by Innocence'. I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information (they haven't cited where they got 'Crooked House' and 'Ordeal by Innocence' being Christie's favourites from lol). So if you have some more reliable information then I'd like to see it.
    It was written on the backside of that old copy I have, though I guess it could be just some white lie to boost sales. That it was the most challenging to write is also on the novel's wiki page.

    Also what do you think about the film adaptions of 'And then there were none'? I watched the 1945 about a week ago. I liked it mostly but in the end they decided to change the ending and make it a happy ending which really takes away from how dark the story was supposed to be. I've heard that a lot of adaptions of 'And then there were none' changed their ending to make the story more happy.
    Yeah, mostly the stage plays, but it was with Christie's consent. Together with the directors they decided that the original ending was too grim for the audiences at the time so Christie wrote the happy ending as an alternative one for better hopes of success with theater goers. I've seen plays of both versions but I prefer the original. From the movies I've seen the American one from the 70s and the new BBC one (which I think was a bit empty with some weird green-ish filter over the whole movie), but I personally think this piece just suits theater better. Most of the tension is lost in those fixed camera angles.

    I think there is enough information to deduce how Elena figured it out but it's really subtle and takes a close look at the characters.

    Basically I think Elena found Nate the same way that Rafe found him: she tracked the GPS on his phone. I'm not sure how exactly the GPS tracking software is supposed to work in the Uncharted-verse but I think you need to first need to connect with someone's phone while making a call before you can track them. I base this on how Rafe found Nate when he was calling him on the phone.

    Similarly I think we can extrapolate when Elena found Nate's location. During the game, Nate makes a number of calls to Elena but I think the call in which Elena finds out that Nate is lying to her is the one that's made when Nate first arrives in King's Bay. During that call we see Elena talking to Nate over the phone. Then she looks at her laptop and starts crying.

    Why does she cry? Elena says that she's going to buy a ticket so people would first assume that Elena was looking up ticket prices. However I don't see why ticket prices would make Elena cry.
    She cries because she's already certain that Nate lied to her. She suspected it before but at that point she probably succeeded in tracking him and she's booking that flight to Madagascar. I don't think there's anything more to that, Naughty Dog's target audience is not much for subtlety, I don't see why they would load that many layers to one segment but not others.

    I just think they wanted to get Elena out of the way in the early game so they could develop Nate's relationship with Sam.
    Both Elena's and Nate's character integrity suffered to make room for Sam (I mean not even Nate should be that big of a dunce), which is just not how this should work imo. I personally did care for their relationship and couldn't give a damn about Sam.

    Same thing with Sully. Apparently Sam and Sully are supposed to be on bad terms but I saw no reason why that should be the case. Sam and Sully are so similar. They both smoke, hunt treasure, chase women etc. How could they not get along?
    I think Sully was the one guy who actually acted like himself. Nate is basically his surrogate son, of course he's worried about him being in bad company, especially if it's someone like himself. He's like a overprotective dad with a teenage daughter before prom, Nate's gender is irrelevant in this case.

    Any other games you have in mind for Game of the Year if not Andromeda?
    I just finished Horizon Zero Dawn and I must say it came as a big surprise. I expected some dumb monster hunting sandbox but there's much more to it than that. The world and story are surprisingly imaginitive and deep, the protagonist and side characters are likeable and the gameplay very fun. It does nothing innovative, but what it borrows from a bunch of other successful games work together well enough to present this setting. The side quests are not quite as complex as in The Witcher but they're definitely going in the right direction, and it does have a stronger central plot that is cleverly paced to keep the player intrigued. There's both a setting-related and a personal thread, and while individual elements of this story must have been done in other fiction before, I was moved. I've seen some reviews that said the story was too "video-gamey" or "thin" but I think those people either rushed through it or just didn't care to look. The writers really did their best with what must have originally been some sketch by an 8-year-old with robot dinos and cavemen.

    It's funny that what I expected to have with Andromeda I got from a completely different game instead. Not that I mind, I think this will be a great new franchise to keep an eye out for. If the sequel could be a full fledged RPG (this first game doesn't have a choice system) it'd be perfection.

Page 78 of 79 FirstFirst ... 286876777879 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •