Jake

Idle Thumbs 190: A Very Spectrum HoloByte Christmas

Recommended Posts

Idle Thumbs 190:

629__header.jpg

A Very Spectrum HoloByte Christmas

It is the season of giving gifts, unless you are Sean Vanaman, who only seems to receive gifs. Danielle and Chris get deeper into Dragon Age Inqusition, which mostly means Iron Bull talk. After that, it's time for a holiday mailbag trip through the digital back alleys of the competitive Smash scene, and a bleak realization about what 2015's really The Year Of.

Games Discussed: Bernband, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Super Smash Bros., Project M, Tetris, Hexic, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First video search result for "angry girl shaking hairbrush next to poodle."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hell is Iron Bull? I wouldn't know as I quit that shit. Cold turkey. Hopefully the campo santo boys will usher in a new era of multi path narrative choice stuff as DA feels massively outdated to me. No pressure

Merry Christmas you filthy animal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about Project M is that it is really quite easy to get it running on an NTSC Wii, but for PAL users in the UK, it requires a whole lot more work (I think it involves permanently modifying the Wii hardware, but I could be wrong). Hence why there is an "underground" scene in PAL regions for Project M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify something about my mail regarding The Iron Bull , I didn't mean to say that traits that are often associated with the "feminine" (such as being able to show sadness (which isn't a bad thing and the Iron bull does that too!)) where a bad thing I was just extremely excited to see some diversity in the representation of queer characters in a game. And especially a triple A game!

 

I don't know, right now I'm just super excited and that might not allow me to see things straight (heh) but what do you guys think if The Iron Bull and the general representation of queer people in video games?

 

As described I wasn't super thrilled about ME:3 where you could date the sad guy who lost his husband recently as a male. Not that there's something wrong with that I just though that generally that's not considered a attractive trait. And I could just be reading things wrong but most of the characters in ME where kind of capable and than there's the sad guy that you have to console, off course he's the gay romance option. Or like the skinny elf or another stereotype that commonly associated with being gay and apparently weaker and less capable than the rest.

 

That's why Iron Bull was so exciting to me because he's clearly as capable and strong as the others and as Danielle described it the game treats your choice to date Iron Bull as respectfully as if you would romance any other character in the game. It's like Bioware saying - So you're a guy who want to date the huge guy with horns? Sure why not, there's nothing wrong with that. And for me that's a first for a huge triple A RPG blockbuster type of game. 

 

So Is this the case or have games been doing this forever and I've just magically missed it somehow? And do we think that this trend will catch on and continue or is it just Bioware being awesome this once?

 

I also found it really amusing and great that if you don't romance Dorian and Iron Bull they can get together (if you have them in your party they can banter about how they're seeing each other (which is adorable!)). Again this fells like Bioware saying - there's nothing wrong with a huge guy with horns and a guy with a funny mustache to get together (and it's also kind of a love solves war story because they're from different sides (which is kind of sweet!)). This also made me think about the internal discussion and intentions at Bioware behind the decision of including this kind of stuff. I mean most triple A games strive for the safe route to make as much money as possible while minimizing costs as the costs of making these games are pretty huge. But as far as I know the "safe route" hasn't previously included having gay romances happen in your party.

 

I guess my question is why you guys think that  Bioware is including these kind of things in the game, it doesn't seem reasonable that it's due to financial profits because.. well... the gay/bi/trans people is a minority. Even tough I know I pretty much bought the game pretty much exclusively because of the interesting representation of queer people I can't Imagine that people like me make up a huge part of sales? Maybe the people working at Bioware just wanted to do it or have a staff where queer people have major roles and they want to promote things that they enjoy and they feel lacking in games in general? 

 

This question have been baffling me since I finished the game. I don't know the answer but the decision whatever it's intent to include this stuff makes me it makes me really happy, what bout you guys , any thoughts? 

 

- Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely supportive of Bioware continuing to do this stuff and getting better at it, because as you said it's not an easy choice. There was a reaction that was annoyed at the proportion of non straight romance options. I don't remember what the numbers were but it was pretty ridiculous to make a fuss over. In contrast it is super easy to just walk the line between and present something that's controversial to as few people as possible. (ie If they had one queer romance option then they would probably get some flak for not having more, but it'd be passable to a lot of people) That's why I'm all for it. It's a tough thing to really run with so they ought to get credit for it.

...though it's always possible to do better with this stuff. Like Danielle said on the cast, Bioware has a lack of queer writers. I just think it's definitely a case where you give credit when it seems like a real effort was made and then you can just point out what more can be done too.

EDIT: I forgot to say that they definitely weren't so hot with it before. I played Femshep and the fact that there were more lesbians than gay men didn't seem to come from a well motivated intention. They also did have a bisexual female-only race in the game where their existence is explicitly about... gathering genetic material.

I hope they find some way to ditch that but having a whole playable race change is a tall order even if people weren't going to be pissy about 'SJW censorship'.

Edited by SuperBiasedMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hell is Iron Bull? I wouldn't know as I quit that shit. Cold turkey. Hopefully the campo santo boys will usher in a new era of multi path narrative choice stuff as DA feels massively outdated to me. No pressure

Merry Christmas you filthy animal

 

FW is less about narrative choice and more about natural relationship development and exploration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DA:I discussion really hit on a nerve with me I've been wondering for a long time- the idea that reviews-based media actually ends up ruining a lot of experiences permanently for those who partake in it, and in the process that opinion gets propagated down the line without a whole lot of argument to the contrary.

 

"It doesn't respect my time" was said at least 3 times this episode. The idea of the game being shorter, punchier, was a suggestion. Similar threads had been said about other games in the past(see: most MMOs, LOMAs, etc), and it strikes me as surprisingly weird coming from the same people who said they're not like "The average Call of Duty player who asks the game to 'Impress me!'". The idea that a game taking a slower pace, asking for more time, a lower average in heart rate, is inherently a bad trait just seems so disconnected from what I feel like many people are beginning to find in new experiences.

 

Sean seems like someone who particularly enjoys this type of game. Games of DotA or DayZ are, after all, 90% "Go through the motions of making sure you're not dying this immediate moment, while trying to grow in power", and 10% "Okay now I'm actively engaging in something".

 

I'm not suggesting that neither Chris or Danielle can see the appeal in this, but I think the language used by them both, as well as a large number of reviewers(I wrote "most" twice, before taking it back, since I can't be accurate, but it certainly feels it) is derisive of a game going after a different aim, or being for a different audience(one with more time). I will note that Chris alluded to this idea several times, but the language used to explain it I think could use discussion, as I think there's a far difference from "grind for grind's sake" and "trying to provide a lower-energy in-between".

 

Hope this wasn't a whole lot of me shoving words in other people's mouths, just a thought that's been bugging me for the past year or two(not specifically with the Thumbs, mostly from review sites) and it finally all came together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking personally about Dragon Age Origins (the only one I've played), I agree with the sentiment. And the difference between DA and Dota or Day Z is that the mechanics of DA's fighting don't appeal to me at all. In Dota or Day Z the mechanics of the game involve a lot of down time but those enhance the mechanics of what you enjoy in those games

In DA I just wanted to roam the world and talk to people for story stuff. Having the game geared towards balancing that with story was making it drag for me, so much so I just got a mod that bypassed all fighting for me. That meant I didn't really do any more fighting, strategising or inventory management. (except to find key or quest items that might lead to something)

Essentially, there is a difference between a slow paced experience you're willing to dive into and an experience that moves slowly because it's giving you more of something than you really want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna quickly jump in on the DA:I "not respecting my time" thing, as while I am definitely in the "skip the combat and get back to the story" style player with Bioware games especially, I'm good friends with someone who is playing the game on "nightmare" difficulty and exclusively in "strategic mode", and her descriptions of the game are more like a stealth game, mixed with a second-by-second RTS version of XCOM. Most of this is second-hand, but I'll try and explain what a "minor" combat sounds like when she describes it:

 

Playing as a mage is less about "holding the shoot button", and becomes a huge game of positioning and stealth. First, get the mage into position (preferably up high) to surprise the closest units and cast barrier AS your other warrior characters reach melee range, then get out of the way of archers and waiting for the next chance. Switch to your warriors and fire off your special moves. Meanwhile you've been sneaking your rogue around behind those archers and started to pick them off and draw aggro (check on your warriors and chug a potion if necessary). Switch back to the mage, cast an AoE spell on the archers to finish the job, cast barrier again on the warriors, and now bring everyone together in the middle to finish the fight.

 

On normal? That's maybe 15-30 seconds in real-time. Playing her way, on nightmare? This is one person perfectly executing a team-stomp in Dota that takes maybe 5-10 mins to pull off.

 

 

Difficulty in games that you're playing for the story is a seriously interesting problem:
Alien Isolation's "story" is fantastic

but man that instant-death thing is annoying

but that's what makes it scary

and that's what makes the story engaging

but i still wish i could play it without the alien.

 

Same thing with Dragon Age and its combat FOR ME.

 

Dragon Age isn't just a giant block of marble. It's several blocks.

You can chisel a perfect dragon out of the "story" block, and never really have to chip off much of the "combat" block, the "crafting" block or the "strategy map" block.

 

Honestly, I think that's respecting your time as much possible in a game the scope of DA:I.

 

Could do with a little less elfroot though. Seriously, what's with all the elfroot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of length on Dragon Age or game length in general - first I think there is(and there should be) space for all kinds of length, which sould be in accord to that how long that game need to be long - not short or longer more - what should be avoided its "time inflation", by which I mean something you could see more in recent ubisoft game where they put millions of activities to do, but most of them are meaningless. DAI isn´t the case, because while there is one or two thing that appear a bit off - like the mini game of constellations - most thing still related to the game. DAI and other games like Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout are meant to be slow pace experiences, if you run them too fast you simple lose too much. Now, I can understand for some people, this slow experience game are bit difficult due real life time limitations. The thing is find your own pace to play it, because for me I played Oblivion from when it was released until Skyrim was released, but a slower pace, enjoying the game and mod as I wanted, I didn´t try do to everything.

 

Something curious thing I noticed, I think might be a issue in the game is that it drop you very soon in Hinterlands and them you can spend too much time there, even before you look for the other characters, not that the place is bad, but if very open (for a DA game) and some people might spend too much time there often hitting some walls (people require a higher level), because from what I heard from one or two people didn´t like the game and some people write about it, they complain about Hinterlands, but some of them soon as they leave the place start enjoying the game a lot more.

 

Because unlike Bethesa game, where activities and places which are spread in a big map, where to find another you need to go somewhere else so you are seeing something new everytime. But since DAI is divided in maps you often stay for longer times in the same exactly place doing both fun stuff and some thing that might not be that fun, like looking for shards. While map design in general is very good, due size limitation terrain formations often appeared to be a bit too "unnatural" or very sudden, but with expection of this and a couple places or activities which the maps trick you that is close but isn´t, I really like exploring around.

Edited by Valorian Endymion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thing to consider because I don't think the games I've made have ever prescribed to Chris's notion of respecting the player's time.  I don't think he would say that about something like The Walking Dead but I wonder if that just boils down to the fact that he liked The Walking Dead despite it having some cruft.  Anyway, I'm sure he'll chime in.

 

The thing is (and this is obviously pure speculation) I think I would probably say the same thing about DA:I if I were to play it (I sure that feel way about the Mass Effect games).  But, as pointed out above, I will put tens (or hundreds) of hours into something for a very small or brief payoff (DayZ, Dota 2).  I grew up hunting and fishing so that means you spend hours and hours and hours alone waiting for a moment that may never come.  I find that slow burn really pleasurable.

 

The issue for me is actually stakes.  (I get the sense that the critique I'm about to levy isn't quite appropriate for DA:I, so give me a pass on that -- this is more of a general criticism of big 40+ hour video games like ME, AC, Destiny, Borderlands, whatever).  It's really hard for me to invest that initial ten hours or whatever when I know that no matter what I'm going to end up as a powerful hero.  I'm just clocking the hours until the game goes "ok, yeah, you can go do the heroic thing now."  The stakes in Day-Z and Dota are very high.  You have to actively and intelligently engage with the systems -- not just go through the motions but use a mix of smarts, skill and ingenuity -- to set yourself up for the unexpected moment where you need to attack or defend.  That moment can happen at any second so all the moments in between, the moments that stitch together to make the entirety of the game experience need to be spent in active anticipation.  The critique "does this game respect my time," is sorta moot in this instance in that ALL of the time spent playing the game, literally every second, has (and more importantly feels like it has) consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thing to consider because I don't think the games I've made have ever prescribed to Chris's notion of respecting the player's time.  I don't think he would say that about something like The Walking Dead but I wonder if that just boils down to the fact that he liked The Walking Dead despite it having some cruft.  Anyway, I'm sure he'll chime in.

 

The thing is (and this is obviously pure speculation) I think I would probably say the same thing about DA:I if I were to play it (I sure that feel way about the Mass Effect games).  But, as pointed out above, I will put tens (or hundreds) of hours into something for a very small or brief payoff (DayZ, Dota 2).  I grew up hunting and fishing so that means you spend hours and hours and hours alone waiting for a moment that may never come.  I find that slow burn really pleasurable.

 

The issue for me is actually stakes.  (I get the sense that the critique I'm about to levy isn't quite appropriate for DA:I, so give me a pass on that -- this is more of a general criticism of big 40+ hour video games like ME, AC, Destiny, Borderlands, whatever).  It's really hard for me to invest that initial ten hours or whatever when I know that no matter what I'm going to end up as a powerful hero.  I'm just clocking the hours until the game goes "ok, yeah, you can go do the heroic thing now."  The stakes in Day-Z and Dota are very high.  You have to actively and intelligently engage with the systems -- not just go through the motions but use a mix of smarts, skill and ingenuity -- to set yourself up for the unexpected moment where you need to attack or defend.  That moment can happen at any second so all the moments in between, the moments that stitch together to make the entirety of the game experience need to be spent in active anticipation.  The critique "does this game respect my time," is sorta moot in this instance in that ALL of the time spent playing the game, literally every second, has (and more importantly feels like it has) consequence.

 

That's an interesting way of putting it. I have also avoided Dragon Age: Inquisition because I'm worried about how much of it would be a waste of my time, but after reading Pepyri's post, it occurred to me that my favorite games of the past year, or at least the ones I played the most, all wasted my time in fairly flagrant ways. Payday 2 has its whole metagame built on a luck-of-the-draw loot system, Euro Truck Simulator 2 is almost entirely about driving through empty country between two destinations with nothing else to do, and Crusader Kings 2 often involves waiting thirty or forty in-game years for something to happen.

 

But then, in all of these games, anything can happen at any moment. In Crusader Kings 2, you can even lose a hundred-hour game in a handful of minutes because of events outside of your control and impossible to predict. That's scary, but also exciting, and pushes you to invest. Like you said, Dragon Age: Inquisition wants those scary and exciting moments to be the climax of a sixty-hour game, so you're forced to invest at the slow rate of its narrative until that point. The payoff sounds great, but the buildup seems too similar to the "game tax" of so many Far Cry-a-likes, demanding a dozen hours of powerlessness to let the player appreciate the lofty ceiling of their eventual low-level agency, while still being unable to fail in a meaningful way. It seems sometimes like so much waiting around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is a reason to link A Life Well Wasted.

After the intro it explains the story of Tetris holding company excellently.

It's also a reason to link Generation 16 (I recommend people watch the whole series).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thing to consider because I don't think the games I've made have ever prescribed to Chris's notion of respecting the player's time.  I don't think he would say that about something like The Walking Dead but I wonder if that just boils down to the fact that he liked The Walking Dead despite it having some cruft.  Anyway, I'm sure he'll chime in.

 

The thing is (and this is obviously pure speculation) I think I would probably say the same thing about DA:I if I were to play it (I sure that feel way about the Mass Effect games).  But, as pointed out above, I will put tens (or hundreds) of hours into something for a very small or brief payoff (DayZ, Dota 2).  I grew up hunting and fishing so that means you spend hours and hours and hours alone waiting for a moment that may never come.  I find that slow burn really pleasurable.

 

The issue for me is actually stakes.  (I get the sense that the critique I'm about to levy isn't quite appropriate for DA:I, so give me a pass on that -- this is more of a general criticism of big 40+ hour video games like ME, AC, Destiny, Borderlands, whatever).  It's really hard for me to invest that initial ten hours or whatever when I know that no matter what I'm going to end up as a powerful hero.  I'm just clocking the hours until the game goes "ok, yeah, you can go do the heroic thing now."  The stakes in Day-Z and Dota are very high.  You have to actively and intelligently engage with the systems -- not just go through the motions but use a mix of smarts, skill and ingenuity -- to set yourself up for the unexpected moment where you need to attack or defend.  That moment can happen at any second so all the moments in between, the moments that stitch together to make the entirety of the game experience need to be spent in active anticipation.  The critique "does this game respect my time," is sorta moot in this instance in that ALL of the time spent playing the game, literally every second, has (and more importantly feels like it has) consequence.

 

I think that the key difference between dumping hours into an rpg vs dumping hours into a competitive game is who is getting better at the game. Dota, and Counter-Strike reward your playtime with you actually getting better at the game, while Dragon Age awards you with A) your dude getting more powerful and B) story and character development. If you want to play a game for the story but it forces you to grind through battles that don't really matter that can be seen as not respecting the players time. I'm one of those people who HATES grinding in games. I can't stand WoW or Diablo. I really like competitive games and getting sweet loot though, so I've dumped hours and hours learning games with complex systems like Dota and roguelikes where everything gets wiped after a game. 

 

Hunting and fishing are actual skills. It's rewarding to be able to catch a fish! I'm trying to think of a real world activity equivalent to grinding out an rpg character, but the only thing I can come up with would be like, reading a book that is entirely "lorem ipsum" repeated for a thousand pages. You personally gain nothing from it. 

 

I can see how a bit of padding makes a game feel more substantial or epic but it's a fine line between vast worlds and tedium.

 

As for where The Walking Dead would fit into this, I'd say that it's the story and character bits of a Dragon Age type game without the hours and hours of grinding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the exploration and wandering of DA:I wasn't about it feeling epic- I mean, once you're the only one around while the big baddie and his dragon stare you down, you've basically hit pinnacle epic, so I suppose that was all well and sealed.

 

For me, it made it feel like the world went on without me. I felt like I was taking hikes, doing R&D for the Inquisition and taking people I felt I could trust along with me. It would sometimes turn into its own adventure, but that always felt like it "just happened" in a way that the story never did, and it was rare enough among the hours of "I hate how swamps make my boots wet." attitude of exploration.

 

I do resonate with the 'stakes' idea though, Sean. The risk of your skill never increasing is totally valid, but I wonder if a more intelligently accomplished difficulty system for single player RPGs would let you have that same feeling. But I suppose I also enjoy the rote practice of certain tasks- I mean, I spent $60 on Elite:Dangerous and then another $60 to get a brand new controller for it 'cause the old PS3 controller just wasn't cutting it anymore. And I doubt you could place that game as anything but a slow grind. A pleasurable one, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The older CRPGs like Baldur's Gate used to have some of those high stakes by virtue of being based off of AD&D. I was recently listening to a podcast where someone just played BG1 and it reminded me how harsh those games start off. At level 1 most of your party has single digit hit points, and you only go up to level 8 over the course of the entire game. It's very easy to lose and have a party wipe even if your tactics are on point, since there's probability built into everything you try to do.

 

Origins still felt like that in spots, especially against the tough wraith enemies you'd find in each area. Maybe Inquisition would've benefitted from moving towards less combat scenarios overall, but having each one be highly tactical and difficult, rather than filling the game with lots of what seems like the least interesting combat a Dragon Age game has ever had*. Not that I think this would change Chris' time opinion that much, he said pretty similar stuff about Dark Souls 2 and that game is fairly challenging every step of the way.

 

*My general impression from what I've heard about the game, maybe I'm totally off base. Combat has never been presented as a selling point in a lot of the material I've read for Inquisition, especially in comparison to how people lauded the return of classic CRPG gameplay when Origins released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, having actually listened to the whole episode now, I cannot wait to have the Thumbs play Space Alert. It's fully possible to stream, considering that it's only about forty minutes to play once you all know the game. I don't care if they're never going to do it, the thought of watching Chris, Jake, Sean, Danielle, and Nick crew a broken-down Soviet-style spaceship is still the best thing ever. Nick has to be the captain. Nick has to be the captain.

 

The captain's only real job is to take responsibility for the failure of the entire crew. It's how I found out that I'm not really leadership material, no matter what video games have taught me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now