Nonek

I really can't recommend "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell" enough, this is really a quite charming little series in the vein of the BBC of old.

Reading the tots Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books against my own reservations, my lad had been bothering me about the books after sneaking a read and so i'm caught repeating the rather stolid prose of the Eye of the World. One thing i'm beginning to notice is the similarity to Dune, with the Aes Sedai/Bene Gesserit, a chosen one in the form of a dragon rather than a mouse, and the Aiel/Fremen. Quite blatant really.

I fail to see what all of the hand wringing over the last page or so is about, Gamergate has won: Numerous publications have changed or implemented new ethics policies, individuals such as Ms Alexander, Mr Kuchera, Mr Chipman etcetera have been shown the door for their blatant contempt for the customer, the twelve gamers are dead articles are now being frantically back pedalled from and their message desperately denied by the indoctrinated, the ridiculous accusation that the men and women of Gamergate are all misogynists and racists is becoming laughable, and all this when the media have been spinning a proven false dialogue that Gamergate is a harassment campaign. The tide is gradually turning, the laudable moral goals of Gamergate are proven, whereas their opponents on the pro corruption side have been shown to be extremists whom believe in such sick ideas as #killallmen, concentration camps for men, laughing at the victims of terrorist attacks and are usually hypocrites whose behaviour is both immoral and sickening. The vast and diverse races of both genders whom have come together to champion gamers is a fine display of a consumer revolt, and personally I hope that this sparks something bigger and more enduring, that we gain a journalistic arm for this multi billion dollar industry that is fit for purpose, that we are able to form an ombudsman to watch over and monitor the industry and that we finally rid ourselves of the toxic atmosphere, that the corrupt, anti consumer press has propagated for so many years now. Of course i'm not saying that vigilance and work is not required anymore, because there are still sites like RPS, Kotaku and Polygon whom must be brought to book, but we have an upper hand now.

Personally I was surprised to hear about this announcement, I assumed that it had already happened years ago.

Kain as voiced by Simon Templeman is such a fantastic character, in turn sardonic and witty, wise and empathic, and even bestial in his lust for battle and blood. The array of powers at his command is also broad and impressive, light to banish darkness, bolts of raw telekinetic power, the ability to shift into a lupine form, to return in the blink of an eye to the crypt from which he was spawned and utilise artifacts of terrible destructive power. He feels like a power moving across the land, and his magic feels strong and for wont of a better word, magical. Of course the graphics are utterly dreck in most places, but the inventory and informations screens still feature some lovely artwork that really set the mood, with verbose descriptions by Kain, full of humour and sometimes pathos.

Indeed speech is free and dialogue is, when coherent and consistent, useful, telling and should be protected. The only problem is when censoring begins to happen, when those in power whom are proven to be corrupt and unethical use their privileges to demean and demonise, and set forth a false narrative that is furthering an already poor image. When that false narrative becomes accepted, and maybe even popularised by television, then I think that we are entering dangerous territory where actions are taken because of a moral panic, because of a problem that doesn't exist. For instance because of a conspiracy theory about the "patriarchy" trying to cause sexism and violence through games, and the evil redneck developers whom are aiding them in this.

One of the features that I did like about Novigrad was the gradual change in atmosphere, when first entered it seemed like a rowdy and raucous merchant city, but as the story progressed we did see that slide into extremism. This must have been influenced by Radovid, the Order, the Church, and the foe eyeing up the city from across the Pontar. It did serve to reinforce the coming conflict to my mind. Personally I liked Skellige for the Irish accents, the beautiful scenery, the architecture and the sailing between islands. Far too many Sirens however, which really made my trips across the whale road tedious, and with no quest markers and no use of fast travel as a self imposed rule, I explored a great deal. I also don't think that Geralt should have been able to swim in the cold Skellige seas, well without some kind of potion to ward off the freezing water. In Velen I think it would have been nice to see a besieged left behind stronghold, something like LaValette castle from the second game, but with the siege extending now to many months and the Temerian defenders growing hungry, desperate and a little crazy as they stare out across the besieging Nilfgaardian encampment. Maybe a hidden passageway into the fortress from a burned village or some other hidey hole, by which the Witcher can access the place, and perhaps play a role in what is to come.

Though I like this finishing of Geralt's story, I would say that I agree with you: Drop all of the Hunt stuff, make the protagonist a pawn in the war, have the whole game be centred on that struggle and I think you could have made a game that was maybe as good as the Wild Hunt. The verisimilitude of the setting lends it a great amount of authenticity, and a more grounded plot would have suited it down to the ground. The Witcher neutrality is a little limiting, and one can see why playing a Letho like character might be interesting.

I agree about screen time, if anything Imlerith gave a better display as an opponent than Eredin.

I'm not sure what will pass as SPOILERS here so please do not read if you have not finished the game! So what's the opinion on the Wild Hunt as antagonists? My opinions are mixed, they have been the antagonists since the beginning, the wolf waiting in the shadows, and they are established throughout all three games as the threat that is ever present. However they really suffer in comparison to Jacque/Alvin and Letho in my opinion, these were fabulous nuanced characters, and set an extremely high bar that I don't think that the Hunt matched. Part of this lies in the fact that we did not get to know the members of the Hunt as well as we did Letho and Jacque, nor learn as much information about them. They just did not feel as personal and connected as the former antagonists, they had a tough line to walk in being portrayed as monstrous spectres, and not shattering that illusion too soon, to reveal the truth and normality behind them. Should we have had a playable section earlier in the game (perhaps at Avallach's laboratory in Velen) where Geralt remembers some of his time riding with the Hunt? Or maybe even travel to their world, and spy upon the Aen Elle, allied with some kind of resistance, spies or somesuch? Whatever method is needed to give the Aen Elle a little more face time on screen, and a little more relatability. In the end however I don't think that the game has enough of an antagonist, Eredin provides a threat that must be met, but this is Geralt's antagonist really and has been since the beginning. Ciri's antagonist is revealed to be far more nebulous and cannot really take the place of a good antagonist, then again we do not play from her perspective. All told I am left a little unimpressed with the Hunt as antagonists, obviously they're better than many enemies we've seen introduced in other games, added on at the last minute, with no real build up or history behind them. They're not the typical one note villains. However they are not what I expect from a Witcher game, especially when matched against other elements of the game. The Crones made better, and more fitting to the gameworld, opponents in my opinion. Could the two threats have been merged somehow? The Aen Elle having made dread pacts with the elemental force of the White Frost in order to appease it, their world living at the tolerance of the powers of Winter, on the stipulation that they spread winter and doom to other worlds. This would explain their threat to Ciri, every other world, their frost powers and appearance and a lot of other things. If this bargaining with the frost was done by Eredin after Auberon's murder, then Avallach would have even more of a reason to oppose his brethren and Ciri have more of a reason to step back into the fray. Ah perhaps i'm overthinking this.

Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, heard Ozar Midrashim and had to play, think i'll do the series runthrough.

That's completely fair; snide remarks about "trying to excuse games journalists by shifting blame to publishers" (translation: pointing out that the particular instance of unethical behavior exhibited was done by the publisher), and how "consumers shouldn't be made scapegoats for the press" (that accusation makes no sense; how would anybody accomplish that?) are not. Ah I see so it's snide for me to say "trying to excuse games journalists by shifting blame to publishers" but fine for you to say "Well, everybody who's interested in calling out anti-consumer attitudes on the publisher side, instead of pointing at the convenient scapegoat of gaming journalism." Double standards at play? As for how one can make the consumer scapegoats for the press, well one can ask them to do the press' job for them, and defend the press when they don't.

...Surely I am allowed to take issue with the fact that, in the post in question, you've just chosen to let a really slimy move on the publisher's part go unremarked on while patting yourself in the back for winning at Ethics? I'm not going to dignify this particular bit of idiocy with a response. It seemed obvious that I and anybody reasonable would condemn the marketing individuals actions, but since you need reassurance, yes I find this as despicable as I did the last time I heard it happen. At what point did I pat myself on the back for anything? I don't regard asking game journalists to do their jobs rather than asking consumers to do it for them as being particularly idiotic, it seems very reasonable to me.

Which is wonderful, but it still has nothing to do with the image you directly responded to with the aforementioned post, given that said image was depicting a pretty high-ranking marketing guy at Warner Bros. masquerading as a random internet guy going off on a tirade about how it's totally expected for a game to have issues at release nowadays, and anybody raising complaints is "just a bunch of babies". Blaming journalists for that does everybody a disservice. Well, everybody who's interested in calling out anti-consumer attitudes on the publisher side, instead of pointing at the convenient scapegoat of gaming journalism. Seriously? The image was used by me to refer to the whole situation surrounding the latest Batman: Arkham something game, this is surely simple to comprehend? I pronounce that this has ended well with Warner Brothers advising consumers to take advantage of Steam refunds, and condemn the journalists whom argued against Steam refunds being implemented, and you can see no correlation between these two things? I'm sorry, I know it's a knee jerk reaction to defend corruption, champion unethical behaviour and demonise gamers as misogynists and whatever term is trending this week. To try to excuse game journalists by shifting the blame onto publishers, even though game journalists should serve as watchdogs of the publishers, not their advocates. Consumers at the end of the day should not be made convenient scapegoats for the unfit for purpose press not doing their jobs and actually working counter to it.

Which still has nothing to do with this particular example of ****tiness. For heavens' sake, the guy chose to impersonate a random schmuck on the internet, which signals that they're well aware whose opinions we hold in higher esteem, that of the fellow gamer or journalists'. Except that as I first stated (and have bolded above) Mr Nathan Greyson argued against Steam refunds, and this is a black eye for him and those like him whom wanted a basic consumer right denied.

...Or you can just ignore the obvious, that game journalists are in bed with publishers and a part of their marketing operations. After all it's probably all a conspiracy by the patriarchy isn't it, aiming to cause sexism and violence through games?

It does look impressive and I have to admit that the survival and limited resources aspect appeals, the open nature of the terrain will probably make the vehicular sections a lot less fiddly as well, one to watch most certainly.

I prefer not to ignore the evidence of game journalists sleeping with developers, appearing in games followed by stellar reviews, sharing appartments, paying money to developers, not recusing themselves after the above conflicts of interest, publishing thousands of articles that were basically free PR for games without any form of criticism, releasing near perfect reviews for critically flawed games, sacking any journalist whom actually starts giving realistic scores, the bloated review scores that we now see used as a standard, their anti consumer articles such as those arguing against Steam refunds etcetera, etcetera. However others are free to ignore all of this.

It's absolutely depressing how many of the early Avengers episodes are lost, RIP Mr Macnee.

One might suspect that there is a reason for that, such as the press' advocating for publishers and developers against consumers.

Well this really has ended well, with a resounding victory for the gamer, and a black eye for the corrupt media whom wanted Steam to not allow a basic consumer right. I do wonder whether this would have occured before Gamergate, and whether the public actually standing up for their rights, and spurning the regressive press has given the publishers a little more respect for their audience. It's really surprising to see how quickly Warner Bros. stepped in, and an indication of how valuable this audience is to their business. On the celebration of historical revisionism, it's to be expected, Orwell really was a prophet in many ways.

Old iron, any old iron.

Ad. 1 You control Geralt! It's entirely possible to dance around and don't allow anyone to block your attacks. But you seem to want to attack head on and expect game to play itself. Ad.3 In W2 people had problem with potions being unavailable in combat. Now they have problem with it being possible. WTF?! Ad.5 We started W1 on level one having no signs and no knowledge. In W2 and W3 we start with all signs and knowledge. In W2 you needed to learn counterattack move, in W3 you have it from the start. There is a clear upgrade in Geralts starting abilities. Level 1 in W1 is completely different from level 1 in W3. Ad. 6 Loot is not randomized. In Blaviken Geralt didn't attacked the group head on. He circled around them and picked them one by one using close quarters in a city fight. It's entirely possible to use the same tactics in W3. But you as a player need to do this. It's a game not a book you need to do the fighting yourself. 1. No I expect the lightning fast attacks of a Witcher to be almost impossible to parry or block by a a normal individual. 3. I never did, as I said I preferred the approach in the first game oil, food and whetstone wise and the second game potion wise. 5. Yet i'm still having to relearn skills i'd already spent points on in the second and first games, somehow I forgot Whirl and many others for no reason whatsoever. 6. Then loot is extremely poorly placed in some instances. I've never once approached a foe head on, I always attack from a dodge or a block if successful and attack like a wolf as the school warrants.

Donald Pleasence.

While from a lore/story point of view I can understand this complaint, from a gameplay point of view it makes perfect sense for why they designed it the way they did. Part of game design involves making sure combat has some difficulty to it. If they stuck to the lore, then there'd be almost zero difficulty for 90% of the game. From a purely gameplay point of view, coming across a group of 5 bandits would be nothing for the player if Geralt could slice them to bits in 2 seconds. Yes I agree there does need to be risk, progression and reward. It's just that this kind of flies in the face of anyone who's read the books, as you say five bandits could easily be Renfri and her thugs from the Last Wish novella, whom Geralt dances amongst and decimates with ease. How does the developer handle this dissonance, I don't really know. Make humans unwilling to take him on in melee, rely on magic, crossbows, heavy armour and superior numbers? Edit: Then again Geralt (almost) died to an untrained peasant lad with a pitchfork whom he underestimated, proving that man is mortal, even one as deadly as he.