vimes

This game seems interesting, but MMOs mechanisms terrify me, I'd be super grateful if some active player could answer the following: 1- does it have grinding ? i.e. progression through menial repetitive gameplay that reward time investment rather than system comprehension or meaningful activities. As a counter-example, EVE skill system which doesn't require me to spend half my life in front of the game. 2- is the fiction of the world interesting? does it impact the way players interact? 3- is there a strong focus on equipement obtained through random loot? If no, yes and no the it might be the first MMO I'll get into.

I love Hocking views on game design, player experience and his ways of seeing games in general; but to me, none of this has transpired in any of his games yet. This move to Valve is great news because he'll probably finally have the resources, the time and the creative control to realize his vision. No more excuses too

Isn't it always?

I don't think that "STOP FUCKING ME IN THE ARSE. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY." alludes to homosexual behavior; it just references the fact that getting unwillingly buggered by something as large as the electronics industry would definitely prove to be a painful experience. Which in the spurt of the moment might have appeared akin to the suffering of being denied VGA output to your TV. 'just sayin'.

Yes to that. For the record, I extracted the clip from the video version of that episode to be used every time somebody asks me what can possibly be gained from semi-emergent systems or argues that they lowers the player engagement.

I would really, really, really like a source on that one. Not because I don't believe it (even though I don't [i agree with the conclusion though]), but because if it's true and documented I want to have more detail.

Well, some forms of storytelling work for some people and not for others. I don't think this necessarily means you're a sociopath. Though it might. Anyway, maybe the praises are getting out of hand : having thought about it for a while, I'm don't think the game can be considered a milestone - as in 'a game that'd lift the medium as whole'. After all, what it does can only really works for the aesthetic chosen: I don't see the blend of narration/gameplay that facilitates projection would work with a much more detailed aesthetics. And it's not a masterpiece either: there are non-negligible flaws even in the narration. But as a game which 1) provides an experience unique to the medium 2) pioneers new storytelling forms 3) executes them perfectly in most places, I find it incredibly valuable.

If you're going in for the challenging puzzles, you're going to be disappointed. But I'd suggest you try it anyway because it's very unique: it's not, as some people have said, the "Portal 2 of indie games". Beside the english sounding narrator, it is its own thing and, in my opinion, creates a new set of grammar elements for Video games.(OK, that might be a bit too strong, but I cannot find better wording) Toblix is right when he says that the gameplay doesn't inform the story; but I think Bithell crafted a different link between the two, and the result is equally interesting and valuable. As I experienced it, the spoken story establishes catchy and well written archetypes as well as their relationships. The gameplay then proceeds to either confirm, nuance or negate those, sometimes foreshadowing future developments. For instances: , All things happened in the gaps left by the written narration; and I believe all of those gaps were left there intentionnaly, which why I think it's quite brilliant. To me, it's a great example of writing for the medium. It doesn't hurt that the writing is very good - with little to no fat, and just the right amount of pathos - and that each character's personnalities is also conveyed in its physical attributes. In any case, I really grew attached to all the characters and their distinct personnalities, which is a testament to the craft behind it. This is less true toward the end though: the game looses focus and disappointingly shifts toward - but it's nearly without fault until part 7. On a side note, I find the platforming control good, but as Toblix said, shifting between the character is a real bitch, and I hope the creator will revise that to make the game more accessible. Also, no key remapping in-game Otherwise, it's a clear MUST PLAY from me

So, having finished the game yesterday; I'm pretty much standing by what I said earlier; except for a few things: once the 3rd and then 4th dimension are introduced, completing the puzzles without breaking the flow becomes reaaaallly gratifying. I just LOVE . I didn't get that kind of adrenaline-as-reward rush in a long time. contrary to the Portal series - at least from my experience - some of the puzzles have more than one solution. Some are explicitely designed that way, but in 2 or 3 instances, it really seemed that I found emergent ways of solving situations. In hindsight, they were probably sub-optimal, but it's still awesome that they worked out. a handful of platforming sections are overly frustrating because of the slightly unpredictable mid-air control and inertia (I landed then slipped on objects I thought I would stick to) and the lack of reactivity of the jump A very infuriating detail: you can't turn off the professor advices, which are sometimes coming right when you enter a new room, robbing you from finding the solution by yourself. And the fact that his comments are repeated everytime you reload from your last checkpoint after a dying, drew me close to insanity. The last puzzle is a total letdown. But if you can bear through Quantum Conundrum's mediocre universe and its first boring hour, you'll get puzzles on par or better than the best segments of Portal 2 coop. So

Thanks for the patient clarification , I think I needed that to grasp your whole point.

Nachimir, your post is very interesting but I got a bit lost around your definition of privileges. "These chunks of privilege are not from a holy book, an economic policy or a political manifesto. They're our personalities and beliefs". I think that is one of the biggest challenge of modern western society : acknowledging that some of the most mundane aspects of our lifestyle are supported by creating misery for another human being. For instance, me writing this message was made possible by, on one hand, the fantastic freedom of 20th century scientific research in one part of the world, but on the other, by exporting manufacturing processes akin slavery to make the physical object affordable. I don't think anybody can quite grasp how systematic and horrific this is, and when/if they do, I wouldn't blame them for deciding not to radically changing the way they live. Because I didn't. Not fully anyway. I'll always be commending the ones that do, but I wouldn't condemn the ones that do passively benefit from the system while not championning it. I find it difficult to scope with the scale of the phenomenon. In any case, privileges are a though nut to crack: my grand-parents were miners and farmers, my parents were teachers and by climbing the social ladder on their own, they claimed social benefits and ended up in the upper-upper-middleclass. Those benefits could be regarded as privileges by people who didn't enjoy the same process of promotion yet, my parents don't think themselves as outrageously privileged. They worked hard to gain those for themselves and their children; so that they could aspire to more. And my parents are not evil, they are socially conscious and can empathize with other people, but their social evolution made them more aware of the gap with people in higher social strata instead of the ones below. If you replicate this thought process across all layers of society, it explains why privileges are recognized in other people rather than ourselves. I for one, know I'm privileged, because I managed to reach some comfortable stop by doing Video games . I feel a lot of what some of my acquaintances call misplaced guilt, because I know some of those privileges are not deserved but I still want to enjoy them and somewhat feel entitled to them. I can tell this isn't quite right, but I'm a long way from completely reconciling what I expect from a society I participate in with my desires as an individual.

The first episode of Newsroom was very interesting to me because it seemed like Sorkin's 1st attempt at a cast of not-so-competent characters: in West Wing, Sports Night and Studio 60, everybody was VERY good at their job and took pride in getting better at it. The struggles came from the conflict between the different ideologies served by those skills. On this one, 4 of the main characters are not very good at their craft, and didn't look to me like they strive to get better. Of course, most of them get to overcome some of these limitations during the first episode, but the writing is significantly impacted by that change. Since the characters do not have the arsenal to extensively prove or counterpoints opinions, the debates are less acute than on WW and the gap is filled by emotional decision/arguments that, too often for my taste, are dialed all the way to 11. Still, I'm more intrigued than disappointed since it's not same old Sorkin; I just wonder how long he plans to maintain the characters in their 'broad stroke' depiction (Daniel's obnoxious savant, McCarthy's nervous but caring wreck, Maggie's clumsiness and lack of awareness) ... before they are cemented as clichés.. The only thing I clearly didn't like is the super pompous soundtrack that overkills some for the moments; but other than that

Having played the first wing of the game in 95 minutes, I find that my main issue with Quantum Conundrum is that it doesn't really have a voice of its own. The art, the sound, the writing and overall game structure are not very inspired, not well executed and sadly, they're not hinged together in a way that transcends their relative mediocrity. In terms of gameplay though, I find it pretty solid: after a point, the puzzles are a bit more stimulating and the flow is rather pleasant. I'd have to agree with Frenetic Pony about the slow progression, though: the 20 first minutes are dragging along at an incredibly slow pace. But overall, the narrative structure is extremely close to Portal, the sound design appears to me like Explosion Man sound design with an LBP narrator, the level art is very bland... since the 'dressing' of the game isn't striking or intriguing, the game comes out as full of unecessary fluff, and so fails to get an edge over the barebone flash-style physics-based puzzle games. Which probably have bolder level design. I'll play another session next week, but the game doesn't seem to promise anything more than what it has offered me this far. Just more of it.

Wow, this article about Sorkin confuses me: the 4 seasons he wrote for West Wing had very varied, very fleshed out female characters and Sports Night as well as Studio 60 were in the same vein. I remember some writers bringing up the mysogyny of The Social Network - but I considered them misplaced because, similarly to Mad Men, the characters and their environments were mysonginistic not the writer' point of view/ But really, if he uses sentences like “Let me manhandle you. and, '“Listen here, Internet girl,' in real life, he is the sort of patronizing douche I never imagined he'd be.

I don't like at all the idea of 'normalising' ideas; I think it's very dangerous. What needs to happen though, is that everybody should have the responsibility to engage in the dialog that emerges from what they say. Basically, this: [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-55wC5dEnc[/media] Some of my favorite comedians are harmlessly funny but some other are really, really thought provoking and sometimes offending (Chris Morris, Pierre Desproges, etc..); but they do reflect on and off stage on the impact of their jokes..

What? She made the game she wanted to make, what's wrong with that ?

I disagree completely with that: exercising my right to free speech doesn't mean that people don't get to criticize and even condemn what I say. They should be given the right to TELL me to stop. Whether or not they have the right to MAKE me stop is another matter. And my answer is, most of the times, no. Jokes are jokes are jokes ... and as long as you giggle about whatever stuff in your own skull, you get to enjoy it in any matter you want. But like any other form of expression, jokes also convey the mental model and moral values of the teller; and as such, I think you have an obligation to listen to the feedback of your audience once you share them. They can laugh, boo or get outraged ... after that, you still get to decide if they are full of shit, but at least you'd had the balls to face the consequence of communicating those ideas. I sort of agreed with your point and then I realized that some of the greatest advances in civil and social rights would not have been achieved if people didn't get the courage to face extremists. So, I can't blame you for supporting that view since my education also taught me to only try and convince people who are willing to listen; but realistically, it really sounds like a cope out and not really useful to the group targeted by inequalities. Man, those discussion are way easier to conduct live than on a forum. Edit: clean up and shorten sentences. Same point though

My take on it is that it's a honest exploration of 3 creative minds bent on the Video game medium - as in: they can't even imagine expressing themselves in any other way. Since they are like that, they put everything on the line to achieve their creative vision and so end up being shipwrecked because of what's at stake for them financially and emotionnaly. In that way, it supports a very romantic vision of creation/expression since it shows only the most struggling and suffering aspects of indie dev, but what the hell, that's probably fair. The doc still manages to remain fascinating because Team Meat, Fish and Blowhave very different expectations of what their creation should deliver. I'm glad I funded it. As for Phil Fish, I have the feeling - probably amplified by the directorial choice made during the PAX segment - that he cannot help but make everything about his project over-dramatic and that, whether it's justified or not [the possible lawsuit vs. the number of Likes]. It felt like that kind of adversity participated in structuring and fueling his creative process

I'm pretty much all thumbs when it comes to following twits and conversation on twitters, and it seems I'm missing out on a few things from IdleThumbs and other people. So, I was wondering if you guys were using any widget/plugin/stuff that helped you sort out all of this. I've been using the twitter widget from netvibes and tried to use twitter page itself, but I found that having those buried in one of my browser's tab didn't help.

Exactly what I did and why I did it. I just hope it goes beyond a list of things and tries to identify trends and why they are being accepted at one point in time.

I'm not sure if this is rationnal thinking, but I'd truly be interested in the exact same game featuring a male character who goes through the same ordeal with similar emotional response than what they design for a female lead. THEN those choices would be ballsy creatively and they would probably carry more meaning; i.e. in the same way that having mostly 'softened' suburban white male protagonists in Delivrance made the film more meaningful.

I've got a Super Meat Boy Steam key from the Indie Game: The Movie Kickstarter.

So I guess, the "There is no stupid question" adage goes out of the window in the very situation you need it most, eh ? I'll be checking that TWITTER.COM you all seem so fond of. More seriously: I've got a 7 tab Firefox running for all my non-working needs and an 8-tab chrome for all the dashboards, issue trackers and other work related shenaniggans. So having an extra tab doesn't seem the best option. Ah well, nevermind.

This is probably unfair but I'm not inclined to listen to Just Add Water complain about the requirements of Xbox Live and the tediousness of their validation process given the deeply broken and incomplete versions of Stranger's Wrath and Munch Odyssey they released on PC and how long it took for them to assess the game-breaker issues that remained there for a few iterations. Some of them remain unfixed.

Well, I agree that the answer to her question might never be satisfactory for the audience, but I wish the movie was structured around 1) why are people attracted or not to that question 2) what are the possible answers and what leads people to 'believe' in one or another. None of this is developed in the movie and as it is, it felt more like something they thought was cool to include, and nothing else. I can understand if you feel like I'm unfair in criticizing the movie for what it doesn't pretend to be, but to borrow from Duncan's review of Bioshock it felt to me like it "made an interesting statement and then refused to discuss it". Anyway, IMO, the opening sequence is just saying that ; which if true dodges the topic in lazy way. And in any case the question of is still in suspens; and it being in suspens rather than set is stone doesn't do anything to make the movie carry its point better.