algroth

And the new Zelda even better. (Slightly more serious, he did say he used WRPG because he doesn't usually play JRPGs.)

Maybe. I have always heard it referred to as an RPG (or an ARPG at least), but I see how it could not be one.

I am not the only one who thinks it is the best RPG. A bunch of YouTube LP players, (and they play games for a living,) and many commented that Horizon: Zero Dawn is one of the best RPG they have played. i.e., TeamNinja, (who said something like, "wow, this is one of the best if not the best RPG I've played" when the end credit rolls - he even decided to do a review after finishing the game, and he does not usually do game reviews on his channel,) ChristopherOdd, (who usually played several games at a time on his channel, but said, "I think this is my favorite RPG so far" and just stopped playing all other games and focus on Horizon because he said he is "addicted and can't stop playing it,") farfromsubtle, theRadBrad, etc. All of them have commented that Horizon is either one of the best or the best RPG they've played. And those guys play games for a living. That's all fine, but the judgement I trust above all others' is my own. I'm not saying you have to agree with me or anything, mind, just that I don't expect to share the sentiment is all. Also I can't say I know those names, but I for one am as hesitant of the videogame "press" as I am of music "journalism". I appreciate the points I read from the reviews, streamers and gamers I check on but I always feel that my own expectations and beliefs as to what a good game ought to be differs greatly to their own. I'm good with the entertainment value I get out of a game but I also have the continuous expectation of stumbling across a game that works as a great piece of art as well, and as such I cannot consider a game that works on a story and theme as if to only meet the basic requirements as "great", let alone "the greatest". And just to be clear, I'm not saying this is the case of Horizon (though, as I've mentioned in the Tides of Numenera thread, I am not convinced by what I've seen of the story so far either), but it is what I frequently find myself thinking when I play so many of the so-called "greatest RPGs of all time", be it Diablo II, the Elder Scrolls series, Dragon Age: Origins, *many* JRPGs or else (at least the latter two I find to be good too, mind, but certainly not great).

Based on what I've seen of the game so far, I really doubt I'll agree, but I'll know for sure when I get around to it.

You act as if that article is representative of leftist views as a whole, or leftists views at all, when it is far from the truth. That's simply a rubbish article, regardless of the writer's political leanings (whose leftism is very much in question). To say "leftism invades and kills healthy cultures" is to also deny the wealth of great art made by leftists, not least in American literature.

I once volunteered at a library event about ten or so years ago that showed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. In the forum part afterwards, in which the viewers had a chance to discuss the film, this one ol' feller got on about how the films could be explained in fifteen minutes. To paraphrase: Bad guy does something, good guys do something, bad guy fails, good guy wins. As I recall it, and it was a long time ago at an event in which I was a volunteer setting up the equipment, catering, and other things (clearly *not* there to participate in the forum), but this guy's critique was all of five minutes for an event that was several hours in the making if I'm remembering it right. I remember thinking, as I attended other matters at the event, 'this guy came here just to dump on the trilogy.' I wasn't angry with the old dude. Didn't say much at the time and haven't dwelt much on it over the years, but I've always remembered it. Nowadays, we'd just say something like "haters gonna hate" and be done. I'm not saying you (or your friend) are haters. I'm just saying that I spent a lot of money on this game and I don't regret expense at all. Sure, if we distilled every game down to the clichés, then I haven't played one that isn't. This game, though? The clichés work pretty well. That's about as much as I could ever expect out of a game after over forty years of playing them, from Pong to Tides. I guess I'll bother with this discussion because I think this is a fine game so far. By the way, have you simply seen so far, or played a bit also? No weight on the answer. Just figuring out where your experience lies. I've only seen, not played since, as I mentioned above, I don't own a PS4. I also am not the kind of person who views clichés as anathema and believes a good story *has* to veer away from them by definition - to this effect I will always cite boxing films as some of the finest examples of how powerful a familiar story can be when one simply gets the beats right. However, in the case of Horizon I do take issue because the story presented through the first eight or so hours of gameplay is just a string of very poorly handled clichés in place of actual characters, relationships, conflict and backstory, which is not just failing to engage me but actually making me worried of what's to come. The game isn't getting the beats right more so than chaining a number of fills together with no sense of purpose or rhythm to them, but just because they create a haphazard resemblance to what a story is like. Again, this isn't final judgement on the game on my behalf and I know that my friend, who agrees with me regarding the story, is nevertheless loving it so far - chances are the game may go somewhere interesting as it moves on, and it does look fun from a gameplay/exploration perspective. We'll have to see, but this so far doesn't paint a positive picture for me, narratively at least.

From what I've seen (don't own a PS4 but I've been watching a friend stream it), the game's pretty poor in terms of story. The world is interesting to a degree but what I've seen of the actual plot has so far played as a collection of the most tired clichés you can imagine, including cultists, snarky Gary Oak rivals, wise elders appointing you as the Ringbe- I mean, the Seeker, and other more spoilery stuff. The writing and performances are melodramatic and then some, and the pacing on some quests and the likes seems off as well. That said, it does look like fun. I just wouldn't play it for the sake of story from what I've so far seen.

I thought there was plenty of variety in the spells and possible builds myself, but I guess I can see how the variety of spells was light on summoning and transformation. Certainly wouldn't mind seeing more of these and others in the array.

I guess I see it as a video game, first and foremost, and in that respect (that is, gameplay), it's just an okay platformer. Are there a couple of new ideas? Maybe...but it's nothing special, even so. In regards to the setting and atmosphere...that one, I still just don't get. People just rave about the setting and atmosphere, and, as you say, "the sheer amount of detail"...and I went through the entire game thinking, "Moving onto random set piece #42..." For me, the game didn't flow together at all like it seems to have for other people, and the resulting effect was that the game felt incohesive and poorly detailed and explained, not the opposite. Like it was just banking on its "surreal" atmosphere while never doing much of anything with it...and furthermore, surreal atmospheres aren't anything special if they don't make the player actually *feel* like it's a surreal experience, and Inside felt much more silly and over the top than actually surreal to me. So yeah, I just don't get it at all, Difference in perspective, I guess. Gameplay is important to me only inasmuch as how relevant it is to the game in question - hence my love for Planescape: Torment despite recognizing its poor combat. I didn't find Inside to be poor in this regard at all myself, but to me it was less about how challenging it was in its mechanics and so on, and more about the sheer emotional and intellectual experience, both of which I found very worthwhile. Again, when it comes to emotional response it's impossible to reproach one for their disagreements, but personally I do think the game did a lot with its atmosphere and I did get the oneiric experience from it, it felt closely related in feel to the likes of Mamoru Oshii's Angel's Egg for example. And what's more, I think that saying it's just "banking on its surreal atmosphere" is a tad unfair considering the sheer amount of work that went into its visuals and sound design, as well as the rhythm present through these. Were it a game where the entirety of the "surrealism" comes from an atonal soundtrack and the occasional bit of manipulated sound I could agree, but this is hardly a case in which their approach to the atmosphere was anywhere near that flippant. The ending might be a tad over the top but I for one enjoyed the weirdness of it, and it certainly did trigger something in me, whether for being weird as it was or else. But all this is very much down to getting some value out of it or not, emotional or otherwise, and that's the extent to which one may or may not "get it". Sorry to hear it didn't work as well for you.

I don't understand the love for Inside whatsoever. I really don't, not even one bit. It's just a kinda meh/average platformer with a pretty forgettable setting that feels like it was made specifically to be "artsy", but really comes across more as "not made very well". I don't understand how you don't find it well-made or the setting to be forgettable myself, but it goes to show how opinions differ I guess. To my mind it's all about the sheer amount of detail into the setting, into the visuals and sound design that make it such a wonderful, surreal experience. It's not just a very well-made game, it's outright virtuous.

A lot of people equate game length with value and it's a heck of a lot easier, faster, and, therefore, cheaper to fill your giant open world with mindless kill X creatures quests and tons of random bull**** to waste your time collecting for quests, stronghold upgrades, and stupid crafting (in case my disdain for crafting isn't coming through clearly, I really loathe crafting) than making meaningful, interesting, compelling side content that will pad out an equivalent amount of gameplay time. So long as the publisher can say "look our giant open world has 60+ hours of content" that's enough for a lot of people, even if 90% of said content is mindless busy work. I still hold Inside as one of the best games of the decade (if not the best), and you can pretty much finish it in an afternoon. I agree, length is always welcome so long as it's justified, but having a game be long for the sake of it is a mark against it, not in its favour.

The person who already had donated $333 increased their pledge by the same amount. Thus they have donated the magic amount of $666 You sure that certain anonymous donator in question is not a ginger fellow who likes to go by Lucy indoors?

Someone really ought to sticky one of these threads so that they don't keep flooding up the board.

Bad combat is still bad combat. It'll be annoying whether it plays a major role in the game or not.

Horizon: Zero Dawn in a nutshell:

The Salesman. So... No surprises that Asghar Farhadi remains one of the best and most interesting filmmakers of the 21st century. This is kinda more of the same but the fact that it blends a theatre play along with the harder realism he's usually known for means it's also the most plastic film I've seen of him yet (plastic as in, aesthetic and the likes, not as in fake). An extremely tense, nuanced film, featuring some great performances and showcases of cinematic tension throughout. Recommended!

I'd say the her epilogues were pretty definite, unfortunately. I wouldn't mind seeing the voice actress work on a voice set for the protagonist myself.

Personally I'm imagining more of a "Rolonda Watts as Illaoi"-type voice actress for Maia, I feel like she ought to sound much larger than the Devil for one. Think female, less bookwormy Kana. For the most part I do agree that the voice acting for the companions was good, though I did find both the Devil and Maneha a little too preppy and sassy for my liking, in ways that didn't seem to fit the characters all that much (though I did also feel the characters were pretty all over the place too, in terms of personalities matching their histories and problems and the likes).

I've heard a lot of complaints about the sound and music. That's interesting and suprising, considering it's where Torment excelled at the most, writing and voice acting aside.

I've yet to play it, but everything I've heard so far does point that way. It also sounds to me that the game was eventually rushed to release, despite (or maybe as product of) the many delays there were on its release date.

Perhaps some of the more humorous comments regarding Tides is the lot that go "HOW DARE THEY CALL THIS A SUCCESSOR TO PLANESCAPE: TORMENT! SHAME ON THE CREATORS FOR TARNISHING THE GAME'S IMAGE AND DECEIVING US THIS WAY!". It's always fun to read the fanboy butthurt that follows a franchise being revived almost two decades after the fact. Personally I'm always glad of seeing a game take some influence from Torment - even copying it outright may lead to an interesting product, being itself so unique a piece in the medium. Some will work better than others, that's usually the risk you take with any artistic endeavour, and at the very least I find the ambition here worth applauding.

There was also that player poll a couple of months back that strongly hinted towards one being in the works, or at least to the idea of one being in the air. We'll have to wait and see, but here's hoping!

Does it tell you your real name?