Gormongous

And he's a massive favorite among thousands of people who view him without any irony whatsoever, sadly.

Hell, the entire story takes place inside a complex virtual simulation, with which you as the player mostly interact by moving around a specialized ball that corresponds to the position of your viewpoint onscreen. Sounds pretty sci-fi to me!

As far as I can tell from trying to clean out all the failed endings I got from getting the achievements, it just reads any *.save files prefixed with "finished-XXXXX". They're only generated if you get through the credits to the main menu, whether by skipping them or just watching. If you quit out straight from the credits, I don't think the save is made, nor if you played the very first release version before Love decided to make a direct sequel. On the bright side, using Ctrl to "auto skip" dialogue, you can get through all the messages and every crit-path decision in just over five minutes, by my reckoning. Like I said above, it's almost grotesque to do so for such an introspective and somber game, but the Mass Effect series has taught me that a save-generating "questionnaire" is always inferior to importing an actual save, so what else is there to do? I mean, I've got "unmarried male from Earth" saves for all three branches, which I'd be happy to mail or upload if anyone wants their time saved. The completion percentage is crap on all but the *Hyun-ae one, though.

Hate Plus has clickable names, which bring up portraits and short bios that are filled in automatically as you discover more about the person from their logs. I really like it and (horribly) found myself wishing for an Analogue HD or something. Apparently there are three paths, based on whether you went with *Hyun-ae, *Mute, or (not so much) spoilers, both. I don't have my saves for any of them, but once you've played through the game once, you can (again, horribly) speed-run it pretty easily. And as for the manga style fitting, I was annoyed at first too, but realized playing it again just yesterday that a ship AI on a Korean or Japanese ship probably would depict itself in the pop-art style of those countries, rather than in a Western pop-art style. But no worries, the aforementioned character portraits for Hate Plus look like rotoscoped photos. EDIT: Also, I should have mentioned in my first post that Analogue is one of those games that comes with a bibliography. I didn't read most of the literature recommended, but I found Deuchler's The Confucian Transformation of Korea a really serious scholarly read, to my pleasant surprise.

I love your Sino-Turkish war story, Rob, but you know about ticking war goals, right? Once you achieve the listed war goal at the top of the war summary screen, you get +0.20 a month to your war score. Generally speaking, grabbing the war goal and whatever else you want, then camping on it while the AI's armies trickle in and rack up their own war exhaustion, is the best way to win a war against a big power. But your way is more fun. I also think that Europa Universalis IV is an achievement. It combines everything that was good about the multiple expansions of the previous game into a single whole that interacts with itself almost flawlessly. It does not feel like there is anything missing, and unlike much of the Paradox forum crowd, I don't think the monarch points are weak linchpin for that design. What I do take issue with is how monarch points come to be. In Europa Unversalis III, technology, from which came everything else in the game except monarch stat modifiers and slider bumps, was driven by the economy, which was a daunting proposition, but at least it was very responsive to player input. In EU4, they've added a second resource, the otherwise great monarch points, that gates access to money and is entirely based on the random number generator. Sure, you can alleviate it somewhat by hiring advisors, the availability of which is also entirely random, but there's the ugly truth that a 0/0/0 monarch will make half the points of even an average 3/3/3 monarch, all things being equal, and the only way around that is either to stock up points or make your heir into a military leader and start a war with someone big (the latter is actually quite effective, if gamey). To compound this, on top of all the other bonuses "lucky nations" get, they are incapable of rolling less than a 4 in any stat. Watch, the 0/0/0 monarchs that England and Spain start with in 1444 are the only ones they'll ever get. The Paradox forum argument is that it helps produce historical outcomes, but it's really demoralizing to be behind in all tech, no matter what, because certain AI nations get free points. And I like coalitions, but if you blob slowly enough to get big before coalitions start forming, they become a great way to trap your neighbors in wars that ruin them. As Vijayanagar in India, I've wrecked the Ottomans and Ming because they refuse to leave the coalition against me and get dragged into every little war I start. They just don't have the manpower to put down the war exhaustion revolts. But I heard from Wiz, who works on AI at Paradox now, that they're trying to find ways to balance the AI between the two current extremes of "joins a coalition, then leaves before the five-year truce is up" and "in a coalition forever, won't leave for its own good." That's the new Paradox for you, much more responsive. Oh, and don't play Japan yet. There's several bugs, including infinite Catholic rebel stacks and passive vassal AI, that makes Japan literally unplayable. Give it a patch or two first.

Oh, robot waifus are a given.

Also, "really" can only refer to things that are real and "very" can only refer to things that are true.

I like especially that this conversation is happening over the same episode where the Thumbs (briefly) complained about the revised definition of "literally."

That's really awesome, Synth. I remember that finding work was hard when I was growing up in Texas because they let employers run roughshod over employees, but it sounds like you had a great advocate in the hearing officer and did more than your fair share of legwork to see it through. And hey, don't apologize for the length. I love all the juicy details that come with a shitty workplace getting called out for what it is. I don't feel like the little guy is the winner enough already.

On the topics of "video games" as a phrase, I think it's natural for most media to have designations that eventually become semantically empty. "Movie" is the typical example, but how about "novel"? Does anything about long-form fiction bring to mind the concept of novelty? That said, I'm not sure I agree with Jake that media terminology is done evolving once it's accepted into mainstream speech. "Graphic novel" and "speculative fiction" are two fairly successful attempts to raise the prestige of their respective referents. I think the biggest obstacle to "video games" receiving the same facelift is more that "interactive" is such a clumsy, self-conscious word, more than anything else. Anyway, good cast!

The first one is full of interesting things, but not a very good game, in my opinion. A YouTube video or a well-written recap could give you about the same experience. The second one is amazing, but I still feel guilty leaving a second Dark playthough half finished, which my brain keeps translating into misgivings about the upcoming third game.

How sad, we broke the Crusader Kings II streak! I'm looking forward to hearing Sean's thoughts on it in the future, at least.

Yeah, it has a gorgeous old-manga feel to it. I love it.

It reminds me of a sci-fi book I read recently by Ken MacLeod called Learning the World. The book itself was pretty mediocre, but it had a pretty well-considered take on mass colonization via generation ships and slower-than-light travel. More relevantly, the inciting incident is the discovery of intelligent alien life by a colony crew from a star eight lightyears out. MacLeod does a good job showing how a ship like that would have to spend the eight years preparing for all scenarios, in order to act upon the one the reply actually recommends once the sixteen years have elapsed. I thought it was very intriguing, would love a game on it.

Thanks for clarifying, anthonyRichard. I didn't mean to denigrate Pinker's work, but whenever someone says, "This is one of my beliefs on human nature and it is totally corroborated by this book published in the past year," my reaction is that either the book is bunk or their use of it is. I'm glad to hear that the former's not the case, at least.

Yeah, if all the postmortems told any truth at all, the decisions that doomed the company were made long before the game was even close to release.

Yeah, you completely talked around my point. If Pinker is right, and there is less violence per capita, but people perceive there being more violence, all because of an "(out of context) level of media violence," then using his book actually argues for the effect of media on people, rather than against it. That doesn't mean that people who play Splinter Cell: Conviction are going to go out and torture someone, but it does mean that they will see that kind of violence as more normal and normative than if they had never played the game. To argue otherwise ignores examples that people have presented to you over and over, like Justice Scalia citing a fictional media work in the course of justifying a real-life decision. If he didn't think it had relevance to the matter at hand, he wouldn't have brought it up. But he did, so it does. Of course, the fact that you use "naive," "simplistic," and "opinionated in a way that is different from me" to dismiss multiple people who are questioning the depiction of torture in a video game, in addition to the two recent pop-philosophy books you've name-dropped out of nowhere, doesn't makes me optimistic that you're going to acknowledge anything I've said.

As sad as it is, I don't think I actually could, if I wanted to. There's a reason that my plan is to teach college rather than high school. I can't stand feeling like I'm talking down to someone. Yeah, I hear she's moving back east in a year or so upon finishing her doctorate, no doubt with the intent of letting the distance do the breakup. Not the best thing, but whatever. I'm just worried that he'll try and follow her. If he does, I have to break my silence and remind him that this exact same scenario (moving across the country to live with a longtime girlfriend in a town where she has friends and he doesn't) was the inciting incident for his divorce. I'm not looking forward to that conversation, but honestly? He's a pretty smart guy, in addition to an otherwise good friend. He used to exhibit other sexist behaviors, gaslighting especially, but changed in earnest after just one talk and now calls out others for the same. It's only my comments on these specific relationship behaviors that he's ignored, possibly because I'm not currently in a relationship myself and hence am not one to talk, in his eyes.

He met his wife during his second week of college. When they split a year ago, he told me that he understood how codependency and communication issues had led to his divorce, but then he stuck with the very first girl he met on OK Cupid. I think that he cares more about having a relationship than who is in the relationship with him, but doesn't really acknowledge how that combines with his lack of savvy towards women and leads to extreme dysfunction, even with someone nice like his current girlfriend. I'm done trying to explain it to him, because it's always interpreted by him as "not supporting my happiness," but it still bothers me sometimes, because I'm a jerk who can't let things go.

I'm getting kinda tired of how my best friend here behaves towards his girlfriend. You know when you're a dorky dude who gets his first date in junior high and you feel so lucky to even be talking to a girl, let alone kissing her, that you act like she's a goddess but also made of glass? No? Well, me neither, but that's how my friend treats the girl he's dating, even though they've been together a year and he's almost thirty. Most of the time it's pretty easy to overlook. I mean, he'll insist on opening doors for her, getting things for her, and getting her approval on all decisions – and every so often she'll tell him to cut that shit out and he'll stop, albeit at the price of having him sulk around for the rest of the night and ask her over and over if she's mad. I've spoken with her at length and know for a fact that it bugs her as much as me, but she's willing to put up with the infantilizing treatment because he's good and kind, even if often to the point of excess. But man, last night they came over to play board games and it got almost unbearable. The game was Galaxy Trucker and she got hit hard early. At once, my friend started demanding that we give his girlfriend however many mulligans were necessary for her to win anyway. She kept insisting that she was fine and didn't want or need to win, but we still sat there for almost ten minutes while my friend tried to bully me in her name. At one point, he implied that he'd take his things and leave if I didn't "treat [girl] right." It was so embarrassing for everybody. Why are healthy relationships so hard to find? It makes me almost glad to be single still.

But Pinker's recent book has not been that well received by the academic community and, anyway, wouldn't declining rates of actual violence contrasting with increasing rates of perceived violence be an argument that media culture must be having some effect?

Well, it ends up that there was still need for a hotfix because a bug in the event files was causing hundred-plus meg saves, so they fixed the traits while they were at it. Now it's full steam ahead with no mods needed, just as long as you didn't load your save between the release of 1.11 and 1.111.

Okay, having listened to the podcast again, I really liked Chris' thoughts on games with no failstate or a soft failstate. Most games have a really black-and-white idea of accomplishments: either you win or you lose, try again. I know this is loaded, but it seems almost childish? Not meaning dumb or petty, but more meaning a child's view of the world, where failure is clear and absolute. Crusader Kings II, among other games, seems a bit more realistic about failure: bad things happen, your fault or not, and the game goes on. I don't think that every game should be that way, but like Chris, I wish that more games were that way. Almost as much as violence, "winning" is such a weird concept to pervade gaming, which is play at its core. I guess the platonic ideal of a game right now is still shooting all the men until you win?

That is an insane game, Procyon! The worst I ever got was eating 240.00% overextension after annexing five Italian and two Rhineland provinces from Austria because my game was ending in thirty years and I wanted pretty borders. It was a very long time of putting down twenty thousand-man rebel stacks while my money and tech went nowhere. If I hadn't already saved up a hundred thousand gold from dominating the Antwerp, London, Bordeaux, Genoa, and Venice trade nodes, I would have been screwed by my own hubris. Anyway, I'll link my world map in 1821. It may not look like much, but I'm the (ahem) burgundy swath across central Europe. I came in first with army, taxation, and trade, plus top ten for everything else. I was only beaten by England, France, and Spain, who all had colonial empires bankrolling them. Portugal and the Ottomans were right behind me. I think I might try Portugal next, hopefully learning something from you, Procyon. First, Europe: Then, the world: Fun fact! There was only one revolutionary republic. The little gray patch in Central America is the UPCA, which broke free in 1801. I was so excited to see something happen in the Americas that I allied with it immediately, precipitating a huge war with Spain and Portugal. I'm probably responsible for its survival, actually.

Well, she's Baronne (French for the English word "Baroness," with no equivalent in French peerage) Melisande (queen of Jerusalem from 1131-1153, one of the top three most famous woman of the Middle Ages) Outremer (French for the Holy Land, meaning "beyond the sea). It's the medieval history equivalent of Lord Cap'n Xander Kittysnoggins or my "American" example above. And her real-life Facebook page has that name!