Tale

A small amount of Shadowrun Dragonfall. I also beat Broken Age over the weekend. The laptop I'm borrowing is too crappy to run Broken Sword 5 well. Even Dragonfall chugs at times. But it ran Broken Age fantastically once the game was patched. And it runs Banner Saga, too. Broken Sword 5 is what I'd really rather be playing, though. My heart's not in Dragonfall. Which is kind of good, because it means I spend more time writing.

Started up Shadowrun Dragonfall. I still love their descriptions and dialogue.

I did play it and didn't like it. Which I guess is probably standard for Jan Jensen because I didn't like Gabriel Knight either. I was particularly put off in that when the two researchers sit down together they begin to talk as if supernatural occurances are scientifically proven to occur and only quacks doubt it. But then nothing about the setting really took advantage of that. So I don't know if the author was trying to worldbuild or if she was being preachy about her belief in ghosts. I never felt like I had any idea where the story was supposed to be going, either. Or how any of it was supposed to connect, even by the end. It was like just a bunch of stuff that happened and then a twist.

I'll caveat that. VO can only set the scene well when it's done as part of a greater scene. Characters interacting with the background, pacing about, and reacting expressively and not with 5 stock animations. I'm not sure why RPGs fail at this, but I suspect part of it a pacing issue with the way choosing dialogue works as well as just how much dialogue and cutscenes they have to do. They have to cut back and it ends up looking like the Star Wars prequels. Sitting, standing, walking, shot/reverse shot. An inexpressive Shepard sitting on a crate while the camera cuts between him and Garrus who is flailing at buttons that don't do anything isn't contributing much to mood for me. It's nice to hear about reach and flexibility in voice, but the body language is completely dead.

Sucker punches are a problem because you're not expecting them. I think that's a consistency issue. One game can build its difficulty curve. It can show you mechanics in safe environments, then introduce unsafe environments. Then over time it can complicate mechanics and combine mechanics in new ways to produce interesting situations. But as long as it builds up to that, it's not a sucker punch. And another game can avoid a curve altogether. Brute force yourself against challenges, figure out what the mechanics do in the heat of the moment and by your own trial. Both are cool. But they probably shouldn't spend much time together in the same game. Though I'm not averse to them spending some time together. The former could benefit from an optional encounter with the latter.

I don't even know what to think anymore!

Dead Space Extraction Only the second crappiest Dead Space game, not counting the mobile ones I never tried.

Well yes. Because while it's dumb, at least Isaac kills the Brethren Moon instead of capitulating to its grand design.

Finished Dead Space 3, played Awakened, and started up Extraction. I enjoy comparing bad game endings to Mass Effect 3. It's kind of petty, but it's a fun exercise. Like for Dead Space 3: It's pretty dumb. It's as if Alien 3, much maligned as it is, had featured Ripley getting superpowers and ended with her flying around like superman before going Carrie on a queen. But it's still better than Mass Effect 3's ending. But with the Awakened dlc, I'm not sure I can say that anymore. If Mass Effect 3 had ended at the point where the fleet warps into earth it would be in the same situation. No battle or anything, just the ships appear and see the Reapers, roll credits. That analogy is precise. Who does that? Who ends a DLC on a cliffhanger? Did they miss the part where EA was talking about cancelling the franchise if the game didn't have massive sales? I'm instituting a new rule. Nobody's allowed to do DLC with a cliffhanger unless the sequel's already been announced.

The Leviathans noticed the other races of the galaxy creating thinking computers that inevitably lead to their own destruction. In order to address this issue, the Leviathans built a thinking computer of their own because they lacked the appropriate fear and reverence for irony. Those computers still exist today, committing acts of galactic genocide in an effort to preserve all life.

When does that start to get good? I've tried reading it from the start a few times since he's one of the contributors to the Writing Excuses podcast, but those first strips are painful.

I see that we're well past the 500 mark. And we seem to have moved quite a bit from discussing the Ukraine, so I won't be starting up a sequel.

I've given everything I can, there are no heroes left in man.

I'm curious as to when Obsidian made a claim about how many significantly different endings a game would have. Not to claim it didn't happen, but I do like to keep track of these things. I remember Bethesda's remark about having hundreds of endings for Fallout 3 and Bioware's remark about having so many endings you couldn't really classify them as a, b, or c for Mass Effect 3. I will note that the further back it goes, the less excuse there is for doing it today.

I want to hate this. But maybe it's my natural distaste for their wheel and attempts at cinematic dialogue. I don't think I'll love it, but maybe it just won't annoy me. It's like a parody at this point and you have to laugh. There's a fundamental disconnect between Bioware and the audience for what constitutes "slight degrees of variation." Bethesda's an offender, too. But you think someone would catch on and just stop saying this stuff.

Fan of all those shows, though Continuum isn't starting in the states until next week. One of Defiance's creators was a guy behind Farscape, so I'm hoping it gets up to that level, despite the small scope it is starting with.

Have part 3 pre-ordered for when it releases.

Then don't make it personal recommendations. Tell us your favorites and we can discuss them. The list would be too long. To give you an unordered top 10 of the top of my head: Farscape, Star Wars theatrical OT, Ender's Game novel series (but haven't read any of the interquels or Bean novels), Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, Babylon 5, Wrath of Khan, Evangelion, first three Dune novels (I didn't care for four or read beyond), Alien & Aliens, Terminator 2. Edit: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fits in there somewhere, too. The 11th member of the unordered top 10. And how could I forget Blade Runner? Or Robocop? THIS IS WHY I HATE LISTS

Seeing the official trailer for Edge of Tomorrow has put me in a mood. The mood for science fiction. Tried binging through TV Tropes for a new series to no avail, so now I need your recommendations. I want your hard science fiction, I want your soft, I want your space opera and science fantasy, I want your wagon trains to the stars, I want your cyber and steampunk, and I want your military science fiction. I don't really care for your post-apocalyptic, however. I want time travel with stable time loops and without, I want your aliens of both rubber forehead and starfish design, I want your ancient evils from beyond the galaxy, and your human aspirations for guided evolution. Movies, TV shows, anime, novels, just recommend them to me. I don't just want, I need. Or we could just discuss stuff. Like how the new Battlestar Galactica sucked after the first half of season 2 or how just how incredible Farscape is. Is the final season of Babylon 5 worth getting? And how is that Stein's Gate anime I keep hearing about?

I hope top right appears in the game. It brings to mind masquerade balls.

Not a founder, he moved over to them though as their Chief Technology Officer.

FEAR is the greatest FPS I've ever played, at least with regards to actual action and combat. It doesn't have exploration or wonderful visuals. It's just really intense shooting with great AI and encounter design.

Instagram and FB operate in the same circle. Part of the whole internet social media class. Occulus Rift occupies a drastically different niche. That of general technology, with a particular focus on games, and with some attention from hardcare gaming. Facebook and hardcore gaming do not really overlap. In fact, there's quite a bit of hostility because of the type of games Facebook promotes. And to put it simply, people fear the Facebook acquisition moving Occulus into areas that Facebook is dominant and experienced with. Look at Google's behavior with youtube. They've made strides to integrate youtube with the Google+ social service. And then realize Google has far more public goodwill than Facebook. The fear that Facebook will try to make Occulus serve Facebook is not entirely without basis. Personal note: I'm not bothered by it. That's largely because I still don't see VR kicking off as big as most others. Though I do see what little potential it had for gaming being hurt by this acquisition. Thankfully there's still Morpheus.

I got another hour into Dead Space 3 and it's definitely feeling like the weakest installment. The areas are smaller and less interesting, they're so far nothing but corridors. And the plots not as compelling. Isaac basically volunteered for this mission. And there's no mystery to solve behind the necromorph presence. The mystery of what happened was the biggest draw for the player in Dead Space 1 and 2, with getting the heck out of danger being the motivator for Isaac. Even the ultimate objective, find out how this planet stopped a necromorph infestation as a key to ending the necromorph threat, seems like an excuse. Because they clearly didn't find a long term solution. And Isaac's already figured out how to stop the dang things himself. The plot thing really hit me when I got the second optional mission. I went off and did it and towards the end I realized I didn't know why I was doing it. I'm searching for some guy who is probably dead and his resource cache. Resources that aren't being actually used for the mission, I don't need them to repair something, it's not food or medical supplies for the wounded. It's gun parts. And I'm pretty happy with my guns. They could stand to be better, but it's not something to risk your life for.

I guess I'm in favor of gun control. But I do feel the need to caveat it. I understand the sentiment in the US constitution regarding arms. However, I believe that its spirit was violated long ago. When the government uses tanks, planes, and body armor while forbidding civilians from those same things, then people with handguns, hunting rifles, and AR-15s that require a kit to fire full auto aren't exactly able to defend their liberty should the government wish to deny it. We're left with the idea of people being armed to defend themselves from more common criminals. Something I believe is missing the entire point of the idea that arms are essential to liberty and something I've not seen much in the way of compelling research to support. Of course, I haven't seen much compelling research to support the idea that more gun control would restrict gun violence, so maybe I should be fair there.