Nonek

Can anyone confirm whether the GM tools suffer from enforced level scaling? Apparently even Ancient Dragons, Beholders, Liches, Demons and all the panoply of high level opponents are level scaled to the player, meaning one could have a first level Lich which is impossible as far the old AD&D rules go. If this is so then I am definitely not interested in the title, such hand holding and accessibility would remove any sense of progression, challenge or achievement for me.

No none whatsoever, which is why so much was lost apparently, truly a waste. Edit: That said the new Vault is doing sterling work and implementing most of the old content, which is a Herculean task in and of itself.

Well I can't speak for immigration in the USA but i've only benefitted from immigrants in the UK. These ladies and gentlemen want to work, they are smart of appearance, usually better educated or more importantly eager to learn, and to be honest shame the youth of England whom I would be glad to employ but can't because of the large chips on their shoulders and their lack of work ethic. I'm all for a decent influx of Eastern European workers into the country, they're a real benefit and I wish our natives would take a few lessons from them.

I was always surprised that there was not a bigger outcry when IGN shut down the Neverwinter Vault and so many content packs and modules were lost, sure thanks to the good works of an independent curator many of the high profile works were saved but still it just shows how low curation is on the corporate scale. It's all about that next big sale, never about a catalogue of work and a history.

I'm a bit unsure what you're arguing for here; the article is explicitly talking about male bodies as loci for different expressions of masculinity. Gender bias and protagonist personality do not enter the picture. I don't think you're required to show any amount of patience in those games beyond the amount that would only provide a challenge for an ADHD-addled lemming, but I'm willing to take your word for it, it's not like I've played every single modern shooter game on every difficulty, examples that run counter to my personal experience may exist. I definitely do think you need to be perceptive in an entirely different manner in a shooter than in a stealth game, though (as evidenced by the fact that I suck at the former genre and am decent at the latter). Well apparently what is deemed too fast to give an impression of fallibleness is subjective, as evidenced by the fact that Jensen's capabilities gave an impression of vulnerability to the article's writer, of superhuman prowess to you, and of being a bit of a crapshoot compared to the previous installments' nano-augs to me (as they should be). I do not think it's hard to see how one of those pictures can give off an impression of sleekness and being riddled with imperfections, while the other doesn't. 1. There is absolutely no proof or gameplay that backs up this different expression of masculinity, they are simply professional options. I agree gender and personality do not enter the picture and trying to insert them is wishful thinking not borne out by gameplay. You're wrong about Garret the Thief. 2. Then you're wrong. 3. If anyone thinks Jenssen is anything but a superhuman and deny his strength, then they're simply denying reality. 4. The scar tissue covering Mr Fenix' body is not an imperfection now or the powerlifter musculature not seen on much of any soldiery? Both protagonists are fit, powerful and dangerous and Mr Jenssen is probably the stronger of the two due to his augmentations, neither of them depict any form of alternate masculinity, they are both professional operatives who can face danger head on or use recon tactics as any soldier will. I don't really get the borderline obsessive need to defend this wishful thinking and desperately try to prove it has any reflection in the reality of the games.

I'm not sure there is no meaningful difference between "full of possible confrontation the gameplay actually encourages you to avoid" and "full of confrontation that's actually unavoidable to progress in the game". Also, I do not think there is no meaningful difference between "extremely dangerous because he always confronts his enemies when he's at an advantage and strikes with killing precision1" and "extremely dangerous because he has a giant gun and even if he didn't, he's still a towering mountain of meat wearing inch-thick metal plates". I absolutely do think "confronts problems head-on and overpowers them with brute force" is a meaningfully different expression of male identity from "avoids confrontation whenever possible and fights dirty when it's not". I mean, I'm pretty sure nobody would argue Odysseus does not represent a completely different heroic archetype from Achilles based on the fact that both men are hardened killers and are actually far above the average human in physical capabilities (remember the archery contest?). 1 Remember, Garret for example, especially on higher difficulties, is at an extreme disadvantage when fighting enemies head-on. Being comparatively squishy and unable to face many opponents very effectively is a staple of stealth protagonists. A fair point, but I think it's hardly debatable that stealth games reward patience and perceptiveness on the player side far more than more traditional action games do. I dunno, we're usually not characterizing video game protagonists like Marcus Fenix or Randomly Chosen Call of Duty Shooter Guy of your choice as "borderline psychotic", even though they rack up a far higher bodycount in their respective games than Sam Fisher does. So why single out the poor wetworks guy? Eh, depends on how you view contextual powerlessness. Is being temporarily without energy for agonizing seconds while it ever so slowly creeps back to full a "total lack of power"? I'd argue it is, in the specific context of engagement during those periods. (Not to mention that due to enemies sometimes noticing you during a takedown, if you went for the "ghost" xp bonus, you were usually trying to avoid knocking enemies out whenever possible, which made your job considerably harder.) I do not think "superhuman and broken" or "superhuman and eminently fallible" are in any way inherently contradictory statements. Not to mention that even Jensen feels ambivalent about his new body, if you choose to roleplay him that way. It can be both a source of superhuman powers and alienation, both from society and the self. To claim otherwise would be a tad reductionist, don't you think? You say that as if it was a bad thing 1. No, one is the action of a smart protagonist and the other is the action of a dead protagonist, this is absolutely nothing to do with gender and everything to do with effectiveness. Shooter protagonists either bunnyhop or popamole for a reason. Once again if the author wishes to identify with one, then good on him, but ascribing none existent gender bias to military tactics is not reinforced by the gameplay in any way, it's wishful thinking. At the highest level Garret does not kill at all, except the Undead, and sometimes must not be noticed at all, and we have allready established that Garret the Thief is neither sensitive, illusory or self reflective, he is interested in self preservation and enrichment at others expense and does that by violating their privacy, something that the author is vehemently against considering the article. 2. No, patience and perception are vital to the shooter genre, patience is especially vital to the modern popamole shooting mechanic while perception and twitch responses are vital to the old school shooters. Indeed hand eye coordination is the watchword of the FPS. 3. I would definitely ascribe this quality to any successful special forces operative, a working form of pschopathy and initiative are the calling card of the profession. A wetworks operative deals with the dirty end of the profession, a mechanised infantryman does not get so close, deal with such ugly situations or is trained for espionage, murder and deniability, the two professions are a world apart. Though Mr Fenix dealing with an alien infestation head on may well be unfit for civilised society, but then again he and his squad seemed so before the events of the first game. 4. No the power recharged far too fast to judge it as ever depleted and a good tactical grasp of the situation, being perceptive and patient like any good combatant would, ensured that you could take down four or five guards by exploiting the weaknesses of their patrol routes. If ghosting then one does not need use power at all. 5. No mechanical augmentation is the new fashionable accessory for the elite, this is demonstrated throughout the game, and all such augmented are faster, stronger and eminently more economically viable than their ordinary fellow Humans. Even Mr Jensssen cannot deny the potency of his augmentations and uses them during his missions. Now after the incident Mr Darrow engineered at Pangaea this alienation may be present in the sequel, but in Human Revolution the elite are heavily augmented, and Mr Jenssen more so does not even have any of their weaknesses or reliance on drugs to maintain superiority. 6. No I do not at all, why would I?

For better handling I always stripped down armour and the more cumbersome additions to the Great Work, it improved considerably handling wise though at obvious cost. There is something so very attractive in clearing a room in Max Payne, bursting through the door in a leap of faith, blasting thugs between the eyes and turning mid air to target the next opponent until coming to rest in the patchy carpetting while all your foes collapse around you. It is very satisfying, and really needs a replay option.

Sleek, illusory and, while sensitive is not a good word, perceptive, though? Sure, I'm willing to use those words for what most stealth games seem to value. I mean, I think it's hardly debatable that there's a certain elegance to stealth games (and their protagonists) which is definitely lacking in comparison from shooters (and their protagonists). Or, hell, even from third person slasher thingies (I have no idea what to call the genre of the DMC and God of War series). I don't think the statement "Corvo/Sam Fisher/Snake/Garret represent a different expression of male identity than, say, Marcus Fenix/Duke Nukem/Kratos/Dante" is in any way controversial, or, you know, not self-evident. A resounding "well, duh" would be a more appropriate reaction to the article than the flailing some people have exhibited, methinks. I kind of stopped following the series after the first few installments, but that doesn't sound like the Sam Fisher I remember... There's an interesting debate to be had around that question. Intriguingly, while I agree with you to an extent (mechanically augmented body = good), I've heard people (not social justice-adjacent people, to boot!) argue that Jensen's augmentation was wrong, because he wasn't given a choice in the matter and the augmentations were more extensive than needed, thus implying that augmented capacity in itself is not an unequivocal positive in the eyes of everybody. And, well, let's not forget the context of those augmentations either: they're not an upgrade, they've been installed to restore functionality to a thoroughly broken and non-functional body. It's hard to see them as an expression of strength in that context. YMMV, of course. As for "never runs out of energy", we've clearly been playing different games, because I distinctly remember a lot of sitting around in a cover, waiting for my single self-regenerating cell to finally finish recharging, especially in the earlier part of the game where energy bars are somewhat scarce (for inventory management reasons, if nothing else), and you don't yet have the upgrades that let you regain your energy faster. ...Cheap shot much? 1. I don't think it is in any way a different expression of male identity, that's just wishful thinking not borne out by gameplay, they are professions largely dominated by men but also open to women, and are as dangerous and full of possible confrontation as the author is stating he wishes to avoid. Each one of these protagonists is more than versed in violence, they are extremely dangerous, athletic and bodily potent. The author is attributing qualities that are not there. Being perceptive is not limited to stealth operatives, anybody involved in violent and dangerous work will have an enhanced sense of perception or not practise that trade for long. 2. Sam Fisher is a trained wetworks operative, these gentlemen are trained to kill without pause, this requires a certain level of danger, aggression and possibly psychotic characteristics. Without this they would not funcion in the everyday world. 3. That one regenerating bar never runs out, you are never reduced to a total lack of power, thus your energy never runs out it always regenerates and if you are playing a stealth run of Mr Jenssen that is all you need. Choke out or brutally traumatise one guard after another and then move on until they are all unconscious. Mr Jenssen is in no way, shape or form anything but a superhuman now compared to the baseline average, to deny his strength is to deny the reality of the game, and the augmentation being forced upon him or not does not change that, indeed it just adds to the fact that his genetic code is the next step in human/cyborg evolution and he is not only strong mechanically but also potentially. Once again the author is denying the reality of the game in question. 4. Not a cheap shot at all, Mr Jenssen also has his genitalia removed in the opening cinematic of Human Revolution, I thought it bore remarking upon as the authors piece was looking for examples where he can self insert to achieve his fantasy and escape reality. Edit: For clarification.

Well at least you can make an adventure before hand then, that's one saving grace.

I don't like any of the Fantastic Four, or their movies.

Can't the GM craft an adventure/campaign before the players begin the game? This spur of the moment in game design seems extremely counter intuitive.

Well looking at the epitome of stealth in PC games, the Thief Garret, I neither see illusory, sensitive or self reflective qualities. I think it refers to the things you're supposed to do in the game, not to the main character's personality. Breaking and entering for Garret is hardly a non invasive, pacifistic passtime, and his clubbing of guards and destruction of the Undead is hardly non violent. Sam Fisher is a trained wetworks operative, he is not only strong but extremely violent and probably borderline psychotic, once again the article is attributing qualities that are not there. As for Adam Jenssen a mechanically augmented superbeing who never runs out of energy, i'm sorry but stating that he is what the author wishes him to be is simply untrue. I realise that the author wishes to be special, and to depict themselves as a victim, when facing situations almost every man, woman and child has faced, but the stealth fantasy they're indulging in is not borne out by the reality of the games they cite. Edit: In fact thinking on it further i'd say that the gentleman would be far better suited with a protagonist such as Raziel from the Legacy of Kain games, ethereal, unkillable, beauty corrupted, virtue shattered and genitalia purged away in the betrayal by his master/father Kain. Seems far more suitable to what he is looking for.

Tonight I felt like indulging in a spot of balletic bulletplay, while pondering on Old Norse mythology and wearing a constipated grimace upon my face: Max Payne beckons, the intro music really conjures a certain nostalgia.

Or more importantly their begging accounts.

Hmmm, smelling blood in the water and swarming to take advantage of the supposed weakness in the hopes of regaining a measure of legitimacy and influence? It's certainly possible, and fits their MO, though i'd not like to speculate beyond that.

Well looking at the epitome of stealth in PC games, the Thief Garret, I neither see illusory, sensitive or self reflective qualities. Sleek mayhap as a pre-requisite for his occupation, but he is ideally not seen enough to be illusory, he is perhaps one of the most insensitive and straightforward of protagonists, and the only thing he usually reflects on is how much he can earn from a given endeavour, and how much recreation and rent that can afford him.

Well...yes.

I have to admit that i've felt the unusual itch to replay the Wild Hunt ever since first finishing it, very rare that I can say that about a piece of entertainment.

There's another aspect that I think Mr Biscuit has overlooked, and that is the preponderence of other games of the same type and gameplay recieving almost perfect scores, whereas Miffed Max is hammered by criticism that they never were. Now they might defend themselves with saying that they've grown tired of the systems on display since say Skyrim was released, but the Elder Scrolls have been doing the same things for many years before the latest iteration was released, so why didn't the game journalists grow tired of that series and spurn it similarly to how they have done Mardy Max? There seems to be a dissonance here, and one wonders why Maudlin Max was singled out for such harsh criticism, when games that are clearly inferior in many ways (for instance in terms of broken and buggy releases,) are praised and no mention is made of their shortcomings? The grinding for instance heavily criticised in this game is not even mentioned when occuring in others, even when it does not fit the setting, whereas scavenging and survival are an intrinsic part of the Miserable Max setting. In short i'm suspicious of why the game journalist shills have suddenly turned on their previous meal ticket, especially when this is one of the few releases that does not deserve this much ire, whereas far weaker, degenerate and less polished games have been praised to the high heavens. This seems both out of character and inconsistent, and bearing in mind the proven corruption and unethical nature of the profession, well scepticism is warranted I think.

Finished Irate Max, I must agree that it is rather a bleak ending for the old chap, still chin up.

Nichegamer seems very anime focused if I remember correctly, or am I mistaken? Personally i'd like a critical site that is actively challenging the industries practises, the publishers monopoly on developers creative rights, the dumbed down and streamlined nature of gameplay, the obsession over accessibility and the ensuing lack of challenge, the current popularity of degenerative "games" featuring no interaction, the lack of features that have diminished over the last twenty years, and why focusing on the core features of a title in a genre usually means less features overall. One finds a few sites covering such issues but the only one really focused on this is usually the RPG Codex, which produces excellent editorials and whatnot but is rather too raw for my tastes.

Unfortunately I predict that the usual will occur, the migrants will be dumped in economically depressed townships that have no infrastructure to support them, local councillors will applaud their own generosity, unemployment will skyrocket, ghettoes will be formed and the young will be radicalised and grow to hate the culture that they have no real role in.

We can 'mance, we can 'mance, everybody dig up your grans. Priceless, and now in my head for the duration.

You trust those guys? Probably boils down to not feminist enough. I'd recommend it Mr War, it's a great fun ride, captures the weird wasteland of the Mad Max universe perfectly and is fun to play. There are a few problems, flaws and a touch too much streamlining but i'm enjoying the game.

Seems very Dragon Age: Origins inspired, even down to the soundtrack, whether that is a good thing... Little too dark for my taste however.