Gormongous

Sorry, I was the one who injected Papers Please into the discussion, as an example of a "serious" treatment of a historical evil and as a counterpart to the superficiality of the Red Alert series. I honestly think of it as a game that handles a horrific theme quite well, mostly by making the player voluntarily complicit in its evils. We don't have to keep explaining why it didn't get the same criticisms that Luftrausers did. Ugh, that makes me wish they'd actually done more to evoke what they claim than just sand the swastikas off the Nazi imagery. I just rewatched Inside Llewyn Davis and it reminds me how I truly love any sort of fiction that captures the feeling of being on the wrong side of history, either by being left behind by it, as Llewyn was, or by opposing it outright. That's why I like Pyrrhus of Epirus, Charles the Bold of Burgundy, Charles V of Hapsburg, Erwin Rommel, and the entire family I'm studying for my dissertation, the Aledramids of Montferrat. Luftrausers' aesthetic of ever-increasing but still futile technological escalation is great for a game where you're playing the loser in the eyes of history, but maybe they just didn't go far enough? I could think of several different ways that Vlambeer could have driven home that you're always going to fail because that's how the deck is stacked, but how impressive is your failure going to be?

Oh no, I'm not upset, not at all. In fact, I'm more just perversely pleased that you pointed out the exactly the part of my post with which I was least happy myself. I hate it when people say, "So we can't make jokes about rape, is that it," because of course you can, but they have to be sensitive and informed and compassionate, because the subject matter's so problematic. I didn't mean to ask the same thing about Nazis, but I do enjoy having a bunch of smart people here hash out why games where you play a Nazi are problematic and where the bounds of those problems exist, so I'm fine being the one who's dumb or obtuse to drive discussion.

I agree with you completely, but I wonder why that treatment is overwhelmingly applied to Nazis. There are hundreds of thousands of hammer-and-sickle, Mao, and Che t-shirts out there whose wearers have no idea what they really mean or maybe even who they are. Why is there no hue and cry over the many games that use Soviet aesthetics because they look different and interesting, like City 17 in Half-Life 2, or even just use Nazi aesthetics as a reductive shorthand for evil, like the Helgast from Killzone? Pretty much every game out there with any sort of flavor has ripped it from some historical context, but Luftrausers crossed a line with some and I want to know, with all curiosity and sincerity, where that line is for them. I also feel bad because I know that pen-and-paper wargames have a very sophisticated and edifying discourse surrounding the ethics of playing and winning as the Nazis, but I'm not familiar with any of it or with anyone who could introduce it to me.

Man, awesome post. Most of it goes without saying, especially how shitty it is for me to be like, "Well, can we have any games about Nazis?" That's what I'm asking myself, because I want to know, but it's not how I should phrase it in an intellectually honest conversation. I know there are bounds of taste, I just want to know precisely how Luftrausers crossed this one. See, the thing is, they're Dutch, as other posters have observed, so it's not like they don't know about the Nazis. They took the time to capture the Nazis aesthetic in the art of their game, while removing all swastikas, crosses, and other symbols, so they knew there was a line that could be crossed there. I'm not saying they did it intentionally and were hoping that no one would say anything, but to use the Nazi aesthetic and yet try to scrub it of its defining features speaks to a lot of thought put into it, in my opinion. I just wish that the whole "ZOMG Nazis" furor didn't prevent them from feeling they could be forthright about their creative intentions, instead of hiding them behind a smokescreen. I want to know why you chose the Nazi aesthetic, Vlambeer. Did you not want to use Jake's beefy American pilot in a game called Hellraisers and it just went from there? If you wanted to make a game and wanted to use Nazi imagery n it, that's fine, just say so. We can all talk about it without blame. Except not, I guess. I don't know.

Oh, of course. I don't mean to say otherwise. It just doesn't change the fact that it's an underwhelming bibliography of safe and obvious sci-fi. I mean, I don't want to repeat myself, but when one of the leads comes out and says, "There's no new ideas about alien planets out there," it shows me someone who hasn't read (or even heard about) Blindsight or Excession. In fact, all of the authors they talk about were active almost entirely between the 1960s and the 1990s. Even Greg Bear and Dan Simmons, the two authors in their bibliography still writing today, haven't recaptured the success they enjoyed in the late 80s and early 90s. They're missing two whole decades of sci-fi among their influences and that leaves me with some disquiet, that's all. Maybe they're intentionally making a Golden Age or New Wave sci-fi game, which would be great, but if they're just trying to make a sci-fi game full of new and interesting ideas, they're not reading the right stuff.

Yeah, but it's been almost twenty years since Reynolds wrote the bibliography. There's tons upon tons of new and inventive sci-fi around now, plus the reevaluation of many old classics. For them to basically come up with the exact same bibliography in 2014 as Reynolds did in 1996 for a different but related game, minus all of the hard science texts and a few of the less recognizable novels, makes me feel like it's an exercise in PR, not a sincere attempt to find inspiration for their game.

And I think people have every right to feel uncomfortable about Nazi imagery, whether explicit or implicit. I've definitely come around since my earlier posts on whether Luftrausers is about Nazis and whether people should take offense. My question now is really, should they have made the game? Should anyone be able to make a game where you play a Nazi? It's an interesting discussion to me, because we've answered that question pretty authoritatively for every other historical evil in the Western world. You play a Soviet-style bureaucrat entirely complicit in the deportation and perhaps genocide of dozens in Papers Please. I can't imagine how it would be to play that game as someone whose parents were shot trying to cross from East to West Berlin or who were sent to Siberia for whatever. You can play a Confederate soldier and slave-owner in Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. I can't imagine how it would be to play that game as a black person whose ancestors were bought, sold, worked, raped, and even killed by someone exactly like your character ingame. One of these games is a deep study in the historical evil it trades on, the other is just superficial dressing. Like I pointed out in my first post, the criticism of Luftrausers and Brenda Romero's Train tells me that games about Nazis can get away with being neither. However rightly or wrongly, the Holocaust is too much a totem of the ultimate genocide in Western culture, the Nazis too much a totem of the ultimate historical evil for a game about either to avoid criticism. I suspect that Vlambeer knew that, but still wanted to make a game where you play as a doomed Nazi pilot anyway, for the aesthetic reasons that the Thumbs talked about. That's why the game's art so carefully eschews swastikas and crosses of any kind. What surprises me is that, when people still said, "Hey, you play a Nazi and that's fucked up," their apology was not about owning the game either as a superficial trifle or a wacky subversion, but instead about alternate histories and the multiplicity of valid interpretations. It felt and still feels mealy-mouthed to me. I don't see anything wrong with them having said, "Yeah, you play a guy who might be like a Nazi, but you don't commit any atrocities, you're not portrayed as the good guy, and you always fail and die in the end." That is the truth of their game and what makes it okay for me, although not for others and that's okay too. I just don't know what they thought making such an obviously controversial game and then not having a ready reason for it, not when there are ready reasons why there need to be games (and movies and books and songs) from the real or imagined perspectives of Nazis.

I agree, although the beginning of the episode was still more of the same. Also, less generally: For those who have read the books:

So I just put four hours of my life into Pandora: First Contact, a game that explicitly seeks to emulate and even recreate the feel of playing the best game of all time, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Of course, it fails utterly, like they all do, but it left me thinking about why SMAC is such a singular experience after all these years. I find Civilization II almost unplayably dated, but outside of the unit workshop, SMAC totally holds up. I'll start with an easy one. The tech tree in SMAC has more personality than the tech trees in every other 4X game combined. Not only are the individual techs themselves interesting and surprising, but the way they're connected to each other is as well, all the more so when you play with blind research. Every single tech has quotes, read as well as the rest of the voice acting in the game, but unlike Pandora, which just seems to pick the coolest quote on a given topic (erring often towards Carl Sagan), quotes for SMAC tech all contribute to the same tone, which is a perfect balance of optimism and anxiety that captures the unique charm of fin-de-millénaire sci-fi. And that's not even touching on the cool toys that you get! The pacing of SMAC is such that each and every tech is desperately anticipated, so you're never just hitting the "End Turn" button as your inevitable victory ticks down (well, not until the end, when it's a break you've earned). The first time you roll out Plasma Shard Infantry and bowl over the competition is as memorable as 4X games get. The tech progression provides the drumbeat for the song of your victory or defeat. And yet it's all got a great sense of humor and charm to accompany the somberness, too! I could go on for ages, clearly. So what do you think makes Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri so special? Have any games you've found captured any part of the magic?

I feel like I'm caught sounding like I'm the most pessimistically neutral about the game. I know that quest systems can and do work in 4X games, I'm just worried by the (implied) statement from Firaxis saying, "Oh, you make your own faction, so we're implementing a quest system to carry the game's narrative." It feels like replacing something that has worked with something that has never worked for Firaxis, in order to reap the questionable benefit of fully customizable factions, which are something only a small portion of 4X gamers really even care about. Not to say it can't work or that customizable factions won't be worth it, just that there are more ways it could go wrong than right. Okay, maybe I am the most pessimistically neutral. Above all, I hope that they build the quests intelligently to push your playstyle in unexpected directions. I can easily imagine the worm skull example they gave just asking you to choose A, B, or C for military, economic, or technological benefits, respectively. That sounds incredibly boring and would be nowhere as repeatable as a quest that always looks the same at the outset but leads in dramatically different directions towards A, B, and C each time. Basically, if they're going to have deterministic quests, I hope they're not just a lever for more player agency in the narrative. Players tend to tell pretty boring stories in 4X games without some sort of external force pushing them towards something else.

I just killed Havel. Man, that was a rush, especially since it feels like my first legitimate victory over a major enemy (the Taurus demon glitched on some rubble, two summons killed the first gargoyle for me, one Black Knight fell to its death and the other got stunlocked at range by my Drake Sword cheese). I'm not even going to fuss over the thirteen tries it took me. I used the time running from the bonfire to practice counters and kicks. I almost managed to kill Havel legit, toe to toe, but after I realized what a small margin for error it was, I used the roll-and-backstab strategy that the internet recommended. I'm thinking of going to the Undead Parish to farm for Balder Leggings. I might just be stalling for time, considered that I listened to the Jumping the Shark podcast for months a couple years ago and heard all about how the Capra demon ruined Bill Abner's life.

I hate that Strongbow gets guff for being "just a cider". Beer can be such a mixed bag, but there's never a time when I wouldn't like a Strongbow tallboy.

Oh yeah, that's the... Nexus? Nexus Manifold? There's a bunch of unique landmarks around Planet, that's one that's good for energy. You don't happen to be Morgan? Just a tip, but once Miriam offers to swear a pact to serve you, there's no reason why you shouldn't take it, unless you want to imagine her in that punishment sphere.

Important questions: are you playing with the expansion? Are you playing with any of the expansion factions? I would seriously recommend passing over both until you're familiar (and even tired) with the base game. The full tech tree only came with the strategy guide. I think the blind research system is the best that's been made, since you're investing in playstyles rather than specific techs, but you should definitely google it if not having a good idea of it is holding you back. As you might expect, it's mostly just a vast interconnected web of techs. By "alien building" I assume you mean a monolith. Those are good for early and cheap upgrades to unit experience before barracks and such become common, plus they're really resource-rich in the early game, but I think the monoliths are ultimately the least important part of the fiction. Also, fuck the Believers. Miriam can go die in a worse hellhole even than Montezuma.

Reactions: Custom-built factions - Neutral; I like having more control and even an RPG-like point-buy system to build a faction, but it means balance-through-breadth rather than balance-through-design and less faction-specific fiction. Quest-based narrative - Bad; unless they make dozens and dozens of quests with multiple outcomes, this will get tiresome so quick. I can buy playing the same factions and discovering the same techs every game, but not finding the same worm skull and getting the same bonus for it. Factional affinities - Neutral; hopefully having discrete types based on different gameplay styles will inspire them to build in different theming for each, but only three and such obvious archetypes? Separate orbital and ground maps - Good; I don't even need to comment on this. Dual interconnected maps! Unique planet biomes - Good; this allays some of my replayability fears, although again it undercuts the ability to tell a good story. Also, "no new ideas about alien planets"? See below for my comment on fictional influences. Victory quests rather than conditions - Neutral; it really sounds like six of one and half-dozen of another, but they seem really excited about the idea of the game creating an emergent victory state out of your ingame choices rather than a finish line being crossed. Confrontation-based diplomacy with no world congress - Bad; uh, really? They say that coalitions between factions will emerge via the affinities, but seriously? I can't see this being a positive step. Focus on espionage - Bad; has there ever been a 4X game where spies and sabotage were fun things for a player to inflict on others and have inflicted on them? No. I don't know why they say this'll be the feature that gives depth to the diplomacy. Affinity-based units that level up - Neutral; I don't really have a reason for feeling neutral about this. It just seems like they're tying too much to the affinities, which don't sound like terribly compelling strategic choices on their own. Game art will reflect player choices in tech and affinities - Good; okay, this is the best thing they've said about affinities so far. I like that a Harmony-based Brazilia will look and feel different than a Supremacy-based Brazilia, as opposed to the entirely numerical effects of Civilization V's ideologies. Fictional influences - Bad; they cite obvious and boring novels and movies, most of them fifty or sixty years old. I would die of a heart attack if one of them said Peter Watts, Steven Baxter, or even Iain M. Banks, but it's apparent they chose these because they're the ones they already know well, not because they're suited to the particular game they say they want to make. Reynolds' list of fictional influences for Alpha Centauri was surprisingly broad and deep, the product of hard research. This one doesn't hold a candle to it. I'm not going to average out all the goods and bads, but I think I probably end up pretty close to neutral, too. Like sclpls, I see a lot of features that look very interesting and a lot that look like terrible ideas. We'll see how the game plays out; the last page of the interview is full of the typical fluff about how these guys are making a "different" 4X, but the proof is always in the pudding.

In my opinion, the best version of the story is a high-industry, high-tech game played on a difficulty you're mostly sure you can beat. I recommend the University of Planet, but others would probably say the Human Hive instead. Almost all of the story is in the tech quotes and the secret project videos, so don't skip those. Other than that, just play a leisurely game. It probably won't click until the endgame, when Planet starts getting pissed and you have Drop Shard Marines hitting bases halfway around the globe.

Yes! Let your professors know, please. As a teaching assistant, nothing's worse than seeing a student struggling, because it's always pretty damn obvious, but not be able to give them much official assistance because they won't get help or admit that they're getting help. Go see a therapist, get a letter from them or from your university health center, and tell your teachers what you're going through and that you need accommodations, if you need them. Most will be willing to change their syllabus in a way to let you be able to pass, and even the worst ones will at least help you withdraw from their class successfully. And grades are the least important thing for grad school, don't even start worrying about that. Recommendations, writing sample, personal statement, and GRE scores all matter infinitely more. Good luck whatever you're going through, Cineaste. I know it's hard not to see admitting a need for therapy as some kind of defeat, but you're doing a good thing yourself and showing immense strength through just the realization that you need it.

As objects approach the speed of light, their mass approaches infinity.

Two things: 1) I love that it is Jake's fate always to be confused with the voice of another Thumb and Chris' fate never to be confused with anyone else. 2) I love Sean's evolution from fresh-faced ingenue who did prep for talking about Snoopy's Flying Ace to easygoing regular who is often to the point of disruptive. Like someone said in another episode thread, Sean is mid-first-run Idle Thumbs Jake, except Jake emerged fully formed from the head of Zeus, but we've gotten to see Sean grow into his shoes.

Okay, I picked up my game again and ate a bunch of shit for two hours straight trying to figure out where I left off. Apparently, and I don't remember this at all, I fucked off back to the Firelink Shrine right before facing the Capra Demon. I totally thought I'd just made my peace naturally, not that I quit on the verge of fighting the first truly challenging boss in the game. Wandering around, I managed to kill the Black Sword Knight guarding some ring in the Upper Undead Burg, albeit after five tries and mostly through Drake Sword cheese, and I'm wondering if I should have another shot at Havel before I face the Capra Demon. It'd be nice to have the ring, just because I really like the aesthetics of wearing a ton of heavy armor, even though I'm currently wearing the thief leathers right now because my guy moves so much faster in them. A lot of the theorycraft here (Dark Theory? Theory Souls? Fuck, I just broke the word "theory" in my mind) is intimidating me, but the mantra of "master the inputs and mechanics, it's hard to level your character wrong doing X, Y, and Z" is really comforting nonetheless. I just don't like the feeling that I'm playing suboptimally. I may actually be playing suboptimally, I don't mind that, I just don't like it when the game makes me feel it.

Yeah, I feel the same way about Swords and Sworcery. I think most people are disagreeing with the Thumbs that Kentucky Route Zero is teasing something that's not actually there. I think there's substantial depth to the game, with its motifs of post-modernism, post-industrial decay, and the Weird South, not to mention that it captures the feeling of driving on a dark highway in Kentucky perfectly.

The idea is that, by presenting only the aspects of Nazism commonly perceived as cool (that is, the uniforms, the machismo, the efficiency, and everything else that made it successful in the first place) without its ultimate outcome or any other kind of moral censure, the game could spread the ideology (or at least sympathy towards it) among those already impressed by those aspects. It happened before, it could happen again, they say. I myself have no right to decide one way or the other, but I still say it's good material for a Stephen King novella, not so much for a point of criticism. If we really believe, even a little bit, that playing a Nazi who doesn't do anything evil and doesn't get his comeuppance could make anyone want to be Nazis, how can we tolerate video games full of mass-murderers who are celebrated as heroes in and outside of their fictional context? I understand and support with all my head and heart any degree of personal or cultural discomfort from someone whose family, friends, and people suffered under the Nazis, for there were and are many, but as a general critique of the game, I still find it slightly off-base. Even among indie games, there are many more presenting a more deceptively seductive and morally reprehensible worldview than the whitewashed quasi-Nazis of Luftrausers. Often that is intentional, to cause alienation and discomfort, but I don't know if I'm equipped to argue whether or not that makes it okay.

For me, the most interesting moment of an FTL game is the realization that you're somehow behind the scrap curve and that you need to find a way to beat the flagship beyond your default strategy (for me, usually hacking, cloaking, burst lasers, and beam weapons). For the most part, I dislike that the flagship breaks so many rules (especially the disconnected rooms, the invulnerability to a crew wipeout, and the special powers that work even when their relevant systems are destroyed), but I do like that it is a crucible of player strategy that can force some incredibly tight moments and some flashes of brilliance.

Yeah, this happened to me all the time when I was in college and my sister was in high school. It was especially odd because my sister was blond and tan and I was still in my pale emo kid phase. We didn't stand particularly close to each other and didn't look like someone the other would date, but people just assume that when a guy and a girl are together, you know...

Twig, I think you'll love Record of Lodoss War then. It is literally an OVA some dude made based on a Dungeons & Dragons campaign he ran, complete with a Chaotic Neutral asshole, dramatically inappropriate fumbles, and DM railroading. It's... actually, it's not a very good anime until you realize that's why the writing is how it is, because it does its best to hide its D&D roots, but once you do, it's the purest 80s fantasy junk I know. There's also a sequel series that is a lot more stabile and therefore a bit blander. Speaking as someone who watched it just last year, it holds up pretty well. It's paced a little poorly and the protagonist is not particularly likable, but overall it's a very different anime in a very good way.