algroth

New Lenny Abrahamson film (director of Room and Frank). It looks a bit stuffy from the trailer but it could nevertheless prove quite interesting.

That Godzilla trailer is so ****ing good. I'm partly apprehensive because the same could have been said of the first and yet the film itself was a very mixed bag... But here 's looking forward to it.

Made your point? Where?

How is this a problem? How the heck is this 'girly' or, again, a problem? How the hell do you assume the first saga did not go for mass appeal exactly? It's STAR WARS, ffs, not Marketa Lazarová. Where's that "acknowledges the user's agenda" icon again? Lay off the Kool-Aid, kid.

I've been playing Hollow Knight and it's been great so far, so I can recommend that. Of the ones you mentioned I am most interested by Hyper Light Drifter but I cannot honestly say either way that I'd recommend it or believe it'd be the one you'd like the most.

It can and it is. Anyhow, wtf does it even mean for a narrative to be "girly"?

Reminds me of that video injurai posted a few days ago:

If you don't like the idea of the thread, you don't have to comment with snide remarks, you can move on. I didn't like the trailers, not the thread. I have no issues with you making it, just those first two examples were dreadful.

Ugh, no.

I was responding more to the "skipping most dialogues" bit. Well, it isn't so hard. Just hit continue as fast as you can and you'll still be briefed either in quest log or last dialogue before you choose response. OMG YOU'RE TRIGGERING ME SO MUCH, STAAAHP (As an aside, congrats for your country's performance at the World Cup!)

I was responding more to the "skipping most dialogues" bit.

Inspired by the topic of this thread, I thought why the hell not and try to 'review' the RPG aspects of Deadfire and Tyranny myself... So, I will start this off with a couple of general thoughts about roleplaying and player interactivity in videogames in general, as seen from the perspective of someone who has played a fair bit but hasn't actually invested much time in the theory behind it all and so on - so I'm sure there's treatises written about this already and that I'm not reinventing the wheel or anything of the sort right here. But to me, when I think of roleplaying and interactivity in general, I feel one can often divide the actions, decisions and player input into three distinct categories, relating to the what, the how and the why: what are they actually doing or aiming for, how are they doing it or achieving this objective, and why are they doing what they're doing and following what personal diegetic motivation and so on. Most genres of videogame approach the first two areas to some extent or other, and may or may not offer multiple options and greater flexibility for the same: graphic adventures and interactive movies like the Telltale and David Cage games or Until Dawn and Life Is Strange place special focus on a branching narrative with multiple ending where the player has to make decisions on their actions which may or may not affect the outcome of the story and so on; meanwhile many other more linear games have usually a pretty set and single action or objective a player must achieve, but can offer through a more mechanically complex and multifaceted gameplay system many ways in which to achieve that objective - a B.J. Blazkowicz-type character has to make his way from point A through point B through a bunch of Nazis but he may either achieve this by going in full Rambo on the enemy and blasting them to smithereens, sneak his way past the encounters, or lure them out a few at a time to a spot that is more advantageous to him. The third point, the "why", I feel is usually given to the player by the game and the story and so on, and in most cases and genres is either a fixed value (e.g. terrorists have kidnapped a group of people and you must save them because it's your job and if you don't the terrorists will hurt them, or your character's relationship with an NPC is enforced through a cutscene) or an empty one because it's inessential for the game at hand (there's no real reason why that particular champion you chose in League of Legends is there fighting for your beck and call and it's not really important)... Yet when this point is made into a flexible variable that the game asks the player to respond, that's where the game forces the player to either consider their own personal involvement as a player with a game, or makes them reflect about their reasons as characters in the story to be involved with what is happening - and the latter, to me, is at the heart of roleplaying as such. Far as I'm concerned, few companies invest in the 'why' as deeply and thoroughly as Obsidian/Black Isle do and that's why their games are always on my radar. But likewise they do invest a fair bit on the what and the how, and I think that both Tyranny and Deadfire have in many ways tried to move even beyond some of their previous works in the genre to expand further the 'roleplaying' side of their games. I'll go ahead and touch on a few points and examples for the way both games treat the three above categories in each, with spoiler tags as obviously they'll involve as much. 1. What - variety of conclusions and action choices, reactivity and story divergences based on the same, "what do you do" [*WORK IN PROGRESS* will expand on the 'how' and 'why' aspects later, either tonight or tomorrow.]

See, I was actually, if not agreeing, thinking you were making a good argument until this point. While its probably fine to go get a more varied perspective, just for flexibility's sake, I'd hardly say that those people are any more arbiters of what constitutes 'good' or 'progress' than those of us who like Vancian are. And I'd hardly call us a niche as if its a small view - there's a reason Pathfinder's continuation of 3.X and older D&D tropes, including Vancian, made it so popular. The biggest departure even there was to allow more cantrips for casters who didn't want to use a weapon, and POE has wands, tome slam, and arcane blasts to simulate that concept. How people see the combat is pretty meaninglessly subject, just as the contrary view is, its just subjective. Pathfinder is undoubtedly popular as a tabletop game and within the context of tabletop gaming I have absolutely no issues with the Vancian system as resting is frequently moderated by the DM and party engaging in the campaign. Far as I'm aware Pathfinder hasn't yet found tremendous success as a videogame franchise, and we'll have to look at the upcoming Kingmaker to see how that turns out. The issues I raise and have raised in the past regarding vancian casting is that people should recognize the difference between developing a system for a tabletop experience and a videogame one. And whilst I'm not looking at other forums as arbiters of "good" or "progress", I *am* looking at the many discussions in more neutral grounds about these to see what people love about them that keeps them so high on the all-time rankings and so on, and *combat* is almost always looked as something most of these games work *in spite of*. This is a frequent remark I've seen, and I was replying with this same about a remark that brought up the "general consensus" or "praise" lavished at these games. What I meant to say with all of this is that the praise heaped upon games that have tangentially used a vancian system is *not* an argument in favour of it or against change. Also I should point out that I've seen cokane fall on similar fallacies time and time again in the past so I'm on a bit of a short fuse whenever I respond to him. Personally, I'm more about discussing the actual merits and shortcomings of the vancian system when applied to practice. AFA's remark about the system being "pretty crappy" most likely referred to his opinion on its implementation and not on how it was generally perceived and so on. It's an opinion I would agree with too, because as far as I'm concerned the restrictions to resting in all of these games are so soft that it's remarkably easy to rest after every second encounter, making a vancian restriction absolutely inconsequential and mostly just an appendage-like nuissance that every so often will have you click a few buttons or backtrack a little more often than necessary. Camping supplies are never scarce enough to make you hold on to them a little longer, surprise mobs aren't dangerous enough (or unavoidable for that matter, considering the ability to save-scum) to be a real threat, time is rarely ever of the essence so as to force you to make your in-game hours count. With no mechanic to add a real risk or trade-off to replenishing those resources, the management of the same becomes pointless and thus there's no reason why said resources shouldn't automatically be replenished after a fight. Considering how Deadfire handles the resting system I don't see how vancian casting would have served any purpose for it or made much of a difference to the overall experience beyond maybe adding another reason to consume foods and visit inns. I always tend to micromanage too, and haven't even opened the AI editor in my Deadfire playthrough. I don't see what advantages a vancian system would have given me, if you care to expand.

I think the design looks pretty cheap to be honest, but, eh, never cared for He-Man and don't care for this new re-imagining either.

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree! Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight. This isn't true. Again there's a history here of games from Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, with some best of all time titles in the middle there. Insisting that a game mechanic doesn't work in light of this evidence to simply admit you don't care about evidence. You're incorrectly assuming that vancian casting is the aspect that places these games in the list and not many other more important elements such as the story, writing, development of setting, other aspects of combat, significance within the context of their release and so on. Again, Planescape: Torment is usually seen as one of the very finest RPGs of all time, yet people who see it thus don't do so for its combat whatsoever. Heck, I rarely see Baldur's Gate or most other D&D games spoken of positively when it comes to combat specifically beyond the very closed niche of D&D geekdom. That's not what I said. Again, read that entire quoted text. The *original* claim is that Vancian casting is "usually pretty crappy in video games". Seems odd to suggest that given the commercial, critical, and "best of all time" accolades many of these games have received. And plenty of people *have* praised the combat systems of the Gold Box games, BG, and Icewind Dale. In fact, most of the replay value of the BG games is specifically because of the depth of its combat system -- as well as the wide difference of playing as a caster vs a fighter. I have read what they said and what you quoted, and have responded to the fallacy you used as a response. You assume that vancian casting has anything to do with these games being called the "best of all time" when it's only a very minor aspect about them that is, for most people who enjoy the games, pretty trivial when it comes to deciding their overall opinion of them. You may as well say a certain black car that is slower than those other red cars would be faster if it were painted red. I have never heard these games praised because of their use of vancian casting or because they applied it. Great as these games may be, they may still be using the system incorrectly - and I'd agree and have touched on the subject several times before whenever this matter was brought up. Also I would suggest you look past the insular forums like D&D/Obsidian/Codex and see what the opinion beyond the tight niche actually is about them. Their combat is really not all that greatly seen and there's a reason why we've progressively moved away from that style of play, even when using these games as a blueprint.

Better combat than Deadfire. Those rose-tinted glasses are looking mighty fetching on you.

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree! Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight. This isn't true. Again there's a history here of games from Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, with some best of all time titles in the middle there. Insisting that a game mechanic doesn't work in light of this evidence to simply admit you don't care about evidence. You're incorrectly assuming that vancian casting is the aspect that places these games in the list and not many other more important elements such as the story, writing, development of setting, other aspects of combat, significance within the context of their release and so on. Again, Planescape: Torment is usually seen as one of the very finest RPGs of all time, yet people who see it thus don't do so for its combat whatsoever. Heck, I rarely see Baldur's Gate or most other D&D games spoken of positively when it comes to combat specifically beyond the very closed niche of D&D geekdom.

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree! I reckon Planescape: Torment being likened to the Citizen Kane of RPGs means its combat is a thing to emulate, right?

That's a pretty subjective matter, but maybe aside from Dyrwood I couldn't be in greater disagreement, both Tyranny and Deadfire are *starkly* different to what medieval settings often entail. But more to the point, it's not just a matter of visuals but of how the setting is configured from the perspective of an social imaginary, a feel, and the themes treated throughout. The fact that Pillars takes place during a fantasy Renaissance is *crucial* to inform the themes and conflicts explored throughout, all to do with the movement from a theocentric society deeply engrained in tradition and dogma to an anthropocentric society whose fate is independent of the gods. The choice of setting precisely relates to the themes explored through the series.

Worth pointing out that not a single game of these has been a *medieval* fantasy. All have had their basis on a specific historical period and setting or other, with the first Pillars closest to a "medieval" setting, but both Pillars were always based on a Renaissance period whilst Tyranny was based on a late Bronze Age. As with rjshae I also think it largely falls down to the story you tell and not the setting you employ - both Neverwinter Nights 2 and Mask of the Betrayer are stories in a single timeline, but you can see how unique the latter feels just from the particular story it is choosing to tell within its respective setting, especially relative to the former. All the same, given a good story I eagerly welcome any non-historical/non-fantasy setting myself.

I didn't find this at all myself, especially considering how fundamentally evil each faction can be at the end of the day. I especially find the mention of Baldur's Gate as an example of a game that rewards evil playthroughs as dubious as in my experience that side of the equation in those games has always felt pretty empty and unaccomodated for, and even recall that being a typical criticism levied against it. In all frankness I see Deadfire and Tyranny both as being 'truer' *roleplaying* games than several games most agree to be RPGs, from the Witcher, Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age series down to, yes, Baldur's Gate. There's criticisms to be levied against it but the lack of roleplaying options isn't one of them as far as I'm concerned. Edit: I'll also add, on the point of content designed for evil playthroughs and evil characters, that it is also factually wrong to state that there are none. A couple of examples below:

Finally decided to catch up with some of the latest Defenders seasons. The Punisher started off terribly but got progressively better and now ranks amidst the first season of Daredevil and Luke Cage as the better part of the saga thus far. I find the imaginary it conjures amidst all the web of post-war traumas very interesting and, though speaking as one with no first-hand experience on the matter, really rather believable. It worked best when it was all about the recounting and dealing with these aspects, but even so I feel it shines an interesting light into everything else as an externalization of that "there's a war in your mind" idea that keeps being thrown about regarding Castle. And the cast is generally pretty superb too. Good stuff. Season two of Jessica Jones, on the other hand... I'm currently *really* struggling to finish. It is about as rubbish, infuriating and aesthetically non-descript as Iron Fist. Whilst the first season found a really interesting central theme through the conflict with Kilgrave and Jones and how it spoke about abusive and manipulative relationships, this time around all of the conflict and drama seems to come off more as an aimless, pointless hodgepodge of soap, which exacerbates all the worst aspects of the first season. My biggest gripes come from how infuriatingly stupid the whole drama is all throughout the bloody thing, from Jessica's complete inability to chill the **** out for a minute and think about anything to the whole drug-abuse arc with Trish and Malcolm which feels as naff as an 80s TV pot hysteria movie, about how utterly unlikable Jessica Jones comes across throughout with her one-note vapid mopiness, or how insufferably obvious and piss-poor the 'noir' tropes are treated, to the point one could very well say these people do not understand what noir is and seem to have never seen the noir films that they cite within the series. Case in point, see that god-awful bonding moment Trish and Jessica have on a rooftop whilst watching a clandestine projection of Touch of Evil - more specifically, its iconic opening tracking shot. This same one is iconic for a number of reasons, it offers one of the clearest illustrations of the sequence shot in cinema as well as the Hitch****ian concept of "suspense" as opposed to "tension" - this same sequence has *nothing* to do with the scene in question beyond serving to enforce the show's utterly superficial pretenses at 'noir', and in fact seems to outright jar when the very same scene features *five* cuts across ten seconds *after* the characters have finished their dialogue and proceed to watch the movie (thus also pointlessly cutting the sequence shot in question). Contrast this to the use of Shane in Logan for example, as a case of a different superhero venture that correctly borrows from the tropes of a different genre and uses its filmic references as a means to further support the emotional and thematic current of the scene in question. It boggles the mind that a series this incompetently put together shouldn't be universally lambasted the same way some other recent MCU series have been. Seriously, **** this season.

God, not this whole "SJWs ruining muh Baldur's Gate" nonsense again... Anyhow, with regards to what is so creaky about Beamdog's additions and expansion, I'll defer to Noah Caldwell's Gervais' excellent analysis on the franchise (34:29 to 1:00:00 for SoD and Beamdog - also *SPOILERS*, of course):