filk

I actually really like how slow the characters look. With the exception of the sword teleport, attacks with large weapons slow them down, using a big fire spell causes a period of incapacitation while he shields his eyes. It just looks surprisingly unique. If the QTEs work more like Kingdom Hearts Action Commands (Press /\ to response to a contextual queue that a) it is possible to set up almost whenever you want and b ) is over quickly) then even that could be fun. I actually really did like them in Kingdom Hearts II. I'm really surprised to hear that DDD is so good. Maybe I should pick it up...

Yeah, it was quite the knowledge shock. I had the advantage of starting it on a trip to Paris where I was predisposed towards an interest in 16th century European politics. I struggle with parsing your perspective here. Those don't seem the same at all the same to me. It seem to equate ignorance with correctness, though I think you may be striking at ignorance being virtually equivalent with moral authority, which is often the case.

I live in Ontario, and my girlfriends gets about 7 streetpasses at her office building every day. I'm always surprised how many people are carrying 3DSs there.

I was listening to book club Episode 0, and was surprised by the part of the conversation where the gang (nomenclature?) discussed being unable to keep up with Smiley's deductions in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It made me wonder how people read books. Most of the time, when I read a book, I stop fairly often to sit back and think about what I've read, specifically if there is some puzzle or change of character to consider. However, I can imagine an argument being made that to stop and think to to surrender some of the authorial intent of the pacing. Presumably, an author expects at least that a chapter be read consecutively at a constant pace. So my question is, do you guys stop and think when reading? If so, do you think it ever impacts your impression of the work? If not, why not? Is the pacing of a book, and possibly even the inability to "keep up" core to the medium, an intentional design of an author? As an example, I just finished reading a Young Adult novel that I'd had recommended, Graceling. If I hadn't stopped and thought, the book probably would have struck me as mediocre. But I stopped to think quite often, and ended up loathing the book when I, in the middle, considered the motivations of the characters or the world around them.

My girlfriend and I picked up a fairly budget TV a few weeks ago. It seemed impossible to get one without either Smart TV or 3D features. We picked a Smart TV, and so far I've been pretty pleased with Netflix at least. It doesn't seem any clunkier than using a PS3 (though clunkier than the Boxee box my parents have).

I ended up backing it post-voting process, once I found out I'd have access to the documentary stuff. Enjoyed trying out the Brazen prototype as well, though taking on Monster Hunter is bold.

Yeah, there's a lot of endings. Here's one people might have missed: The ending is too fragmenting to allow any sequel. I played it five times and had five (at least slightly) different endings. Seriously. I'm kind of hoping for no DIshonored 2, but rather a different game with immersive sim-level systemization but a focus on neither stealth nor combat. /dreams

There's a strong case to be made that narrative is superfluous in many of these games, especially those in which the narrative is unsuccessful in generating tone. Probably more important in the games you mentioned (Command and Conquer, Assassin's Creed) is establishing enough of a fiction to loosely justify the actions required of you, which could be very simple and straightforward. Then the touches of characterization in the game here and there can reinforce that without an explicit narrative. Basically, a lot of the time having an explicit narrative is bring a sledgehammer to put in a nail. It can get the job done, but it's overkill and people are more likely to notice if it's an ugly sledgehammer analogy falling apart.

It seemed like a weird thing to raise money for. In general I am comfortable with Kickstarters, but I was definitely not at home enough with what the money was being raised for in the Amnesia Fortnight to consider contributing. Was the idea basically to pay to have input into the experimental direction of the company? Or did people view it more as paying for prototypes? Especially confusing because it seems like the Fortnight/end products would exist regardless of how much money was raised by Double Fine in this; they didn't need the money to justify the products. That's not to say I don't think it should exist; if people want to contribute it's fine and good. And the public prototyping is wonderful. Just don't fully understand it myself.

Yeah, definitely on board with the episode 2 twist being really heavy-handedly hinted at from the beginning. I also immediately jumped there.

So far for me it's looking like Dishonored. I always hope I'll come away from a year with an unconventional GOTY, but end up with something completely obvious and expected.

That sounds beautiful. That level of stupid intricacy for the purposes of role-playing just has such a dorky appeal to me. I have almost always been a GM for any tabletop RPG I play, so it provides a very different experience from playing a single-player RPG. But I think if I ever found a group that I meshed with on the right level, I would have a lot of fun playing instead of controlling. On the other hand, one thing GMing and single-player games have in common is a high level of authorial control, which I think I value.

It's a question of your perspective. Skyrim is better in a lot of "game" ways, from the levelling system, to combat, etc. If you come to it in that way, then you will certainly enjoy it more. If you come to it from a role-playing heritage and want it to enable that kind of experience, some refinements/distillations feel like they undercut you. I don't think it's safe to say that one approach is better than the other. What actually sucks is that Bethesda is the only one making these kinds of games, which means that we have no elbow room in the industry for both approaches. I'm pretty sure it's the role-playing approach that's going to give, at least in the modern refinement-obsessed climate. I honestly can't comment on Saints Row. I only played the Third, and it was one of those "fun but nothing special" experiences for me.

Depending on what you get out of Morrowind, transitioning to Skyrim is really jarring. Out of the box, you have a much more urgent main quest, you have fewer options for your character, the game is less free, you have to no quest journal, everything is hot-spotted. It's a game that can definitely feel "dumbed down" when you jump into it (and is dumbed down in some ways). It's the first game where they have actively stopped supporting role playing functionality by doing things like absolutely requiring quest markers to find anything. Skyrim is also the first game where, as far as I can remember, there were no ambitious steps forward in realizing role-playing nirvana. It was made by cutting away from Oblivion and refining, while Oblivion was more adding than cutting. But this should not turn into a Skyrim-bashing thread. I love the game, and have put over a hundred hours in, but I see it as a more dangerous direction than Oblivion (the only crazy sins of which were being ugly and having dorky voice acting).

Some of these are pre-2003, but really should not be missed. Bold are exclusives or may as well be. Bioshock Crusader Kings II Dishonored Morrowind OR Skyrim (playing either will make it hard to play the other, Oblivion falls between in all axes basically) Civilization IV Team Fortress 2 The Walking Dead Bastion The Binding of Isaac Crysis Deus Ex (original) FTL Half Life 2 & Episodes Mount & Blade: Warband Mass Effect Portal & Portal 2 Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands Quake Recettear Zeno Clash All available on Steam, as I pulled them by skimming my list. You should also probably add in either Call of Duty 2, 4, or both, but then cut yourself off from military shooters lest they tarnish your memories of all.

In a lot of ways, this is the "Hotline Miami" of books. It's mechanically solid, interesting to experience, and feels like it's trying to say something, but never follows through.

Yeah, I can't find this either. Went to the PC Gamer site and they don't even seem to have a features section, nor does Google turn anything up.

It's supposed to be a "play button" representation to indicate the video is going, but those are mostly isosceles and this is scalene, you know?

That's a really great perspective. I think no matter what size their world is, they will have the same "scale" of content, the question is moreso what the fictional scale will be. Something like Skyrim happens on a ostensibly provincial scale, but of course all the towns are tiny, there isn't enough agriculture to support the people, and the population of monsters is higher than the population of people tenfold. Questions like these are important. My first question when seeing this was "why does it have to be a fantasy setting?" Except for the melee combat system and magic, nothing about the impressiveness of that engine demands a fantasy setting. That being said, the ambitions in their latest update, plus their tech-first approach make me really want to support it (I'm a programmer). The things that bother me most about Skyrim, for example, is that it's impossible to be just a dude. Even if you mod the game to start somewhere else, everyone references your heroism and stuff. Sometimes I wish RPGs supported smaller-scale lifestyles. These guys are talking about that at least, and they're passionate. If it was only first person, I would double my donation.

I'm with you on episode 2 if not episode 4. I also don't understand why nobody has EVER suggested restraining a bite victim they hope might live.

Or you're like me and you know what it is for, and just completely forget to pick it up until you're back at the dropoff point, wondering where Samuel is, having not only forgot the blackmail journal but also arrived at the wrong extraction.

Maybe it's because I'm male and/or ignorant, but I did not interpret that scene that way at all. I think throughout the book Aviva felt out of place among the obsessive music culture of her husband's cohort. I thought that line was more about establishing that subculture's exclusivity, or maybe a better word is mystery. Definitely agree that Archy getting away with everything seems ludicrous. I don't understand why Gwen ends up back with him at the end, and they make it seem like the changes he makes to his life are oh-so-unfair to poor Archy.

I completely disagree with the "lowering weapons" philosophy. I wish more games would use the Morrowind approach and just inform you "you have doomed the main story" when you kill a critical path person. Then they let you keep playing in whatever part of the world you've restricted yourself to. It makes the most sense in terms of consistency to me - it both makes sense for you to be able to kill those people, and for you to be able to doom your own efforts. Alternatively, it would be really cool if you could kill Havelock and co/dissolve the loyalist conspiracy and then get to choose a priority: save Emily or get revenge. There is no reason Corvo can't go take on Hiram Burrows right from the beginning of the game, if all he wants is revenge, and they could make the mission harder to reflect the lack of method (he could also give you Emily's location if you dissolved the conspiracy before getting the black book). Plus you could have a sweet mission where you're just trying to smuggle Emily off of the island to Corvo's homeland, if you don't go the revenge route. Also, what is with Corvo being referred to by his first name? "The assassin Corvo has temporarily escaped..." is like "The assassin Bob has temporary escaped..."

I had a moment very close to sneaking up behind the High Overseer in mission 2 and switching the glasses. I switched the glasses before they entered the room, but then remembered I had to get the journal. They spend most of the time looking at each other so it's difficult to sneak, but when they turn to pick up their drinks you have just enough time to blink down, pickpocket the black book, and blink back up onto the shelf. I enjoyed it.

Ludicrously high fidelity is definitely a reasonable complaint against the Wheel of Time, but not what I was getting at in this post. For the most part, what I struggle with in the Wheel of Time is that the characters are very not human in their experiences. They are much more literal and logical (except when they decide to be uniformly illogical on a specific point, with the full knowledge that they are doing do).