Keyrock

Made a bunch of phone calls, sent a bunch of emails, did some research, and visited my (soon to be ex) landlord all in preparation for my trip to Charlotte in a couple weeks to look at places to live and fill out a bunch of applications which will ultimately lead to my move in a couple of months. It's a scary and exciting time for me. I can't wait until it's all over and I'm settled and established in my new, much warmer home.

It's cool, I get what you mean. Story-driven games are nothing new, they've existed as far back as text-based adventures. The gaming public at large likes to pat itself on the back at the progress its made since those "dark days" and in some ways there has been progress, but at the same time some of the narrative spark that existed in the early days has also been lost (mostly) in the pursuit of the shiny object. Many (though certainly not all) of the big budget stories we get today that are celebrated by the self-congratulatory media are regurgitated, stale, predictable tripe. Publishers are so sure that giant spectacular set pieces and over the top melodramas are what sell (it's hard to argue they're wrong) that they sometimes overlook, or willingly ignore, that it's the quiet, subtle drama and intrigue that makes a good story. Also, I'd just like to reiterate what you wrote, namely that Betrayal at Krondor is phenomenal (and so underappreciated). I mean the gameplay is pretty ****, but the story is so freakin' good.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree here Keyrock, the Ultima games dealt with complex themes and had narratives that were reinforced by the mechanics, and stood quite well on their own, Betrayal at Krondor was fantastically written by Mr Neal Halford and there are many others. I'm also not so sure that gaming has evolved that much, in fact in places it has positively devolved, after all what do you expect when a new game comes out? Features that were present in games decades ago are impossible to implement now, gameplay other than combat and conversation has disappeared, environmental interactivity is non existent, worlds and characters are painted backgrounds that have no life or agency, organic map design and exploration has been replaced by handholding and quest markers, fantastic sound design such as we heard in Thief has been replaced by some manner of idiot vision, magic is simply another weapon to use rather than an art of wonder and utility, loading screens are incessant and yet in games like Ultima and Dungeon Siege there were massive worlds that required none. Of course there are exceptions and in even the most dull and safe AAA+ games there are innovative elements, but I think it has become far too popular to ridicule the games of yesteryear, and dismiss them as regressive when in fact they were introducing many innovative elements that have not been bettered yet, or even emulated, and certainly not built upon. When I look back on what I played many years ago, and see how stale and unambitious the genre has become in comparison, well I am saddened at how little was learned from or built upon the RPGs of the past. Edit: To be fair Dungeon Siege which I mentioned also introduced a positively degenerative design where the game would literally play itself. As we have seen this has become a desired feature now for some players (who unfortunately designers are catering to) who do not wish to play and learn the mechanics of a game, but instead simply wish to be told a story and fed a power fantasy. Accessibility and streamlining run riot rather than used to distil a game into what it needs to be, such as the first Fallout does so well, each feature and mechanic reinforcing the themes of the game. Which part of "most" was unclear? Sure, there were narrative-heavy games even back then, they were the exception to the rule and it's partly because of that that they became famous, because they helped herald in the forthcoming games with a larger focus on story (and those games deserve all the praise they get). Back in 90 or 91 or 92, when Doom was just beginning to be conceived, which is when that Carmack quote was made, even the Final Fantasy series, in many ways the epitome of the story-driven RPG (at least in terms of mainstream), was only beginning to hit its narrative stride with FFIV (a game the west wouldn't never see for a decade). My point is that the majority of mainstream games at that time were heavily gameplay-focused with story as an afterthought. Story-driven games existed long before then, as far as Sierra adventure games in the mid to late 80s or even earlier with the Zork games. Those games were in the minority. Most games were like Asteroids or Missile Command.

That's pretty weak sideboob. You gotta see the skin of the side of the boob for it to be proper sideboob. Also, it needs to be the outer half of the side of the boob, not the inner half (that would qualify as cleavage). Yes, i did just argue the semantics of sideboob. No, I do not find this to be unusual, why do you ask?

If that quote was from MCA I'd really want to see MCA's porn collection. You say that like you don't want to now. I don't know, man, people have different tastes. Ya don't know what you might blunder into. >_> That's what makes it so enticing.

Playing the part of Melky in this post is Keyrock.

I have no issue with multiplayer only games at $60. What really grinds my gears, though... ...is when the folks making Battlefront announce that they're omitting a SP campaign to concentrate on MP and deliver the best MP product possible then release the game with only 4 maps, missing many of the favorite modes from Battlefront 2, and with hilarious balance and spawning issues. You cut the SP campaign to concentrate on MP and still deliver a half-assed product? On the flip side of the coin you have Rainbow Six: Siege, which is also MP only (it does have SP, but that SP might as well not exist), and it only has 2 MP modes, but it's main mode is AMAZING. That main mode has insane depth, is finely tuned, and if just flat out awesome. You give me a MP only full priced game like R6: Siege and I'll be a happy camper. You give me a full priced MP only game like Battlefront and I'll give you the middle finger.

The second season of Lucha Underground started on Wednesday. The first season was, no hyperbole, the single best season of a wrestling show I have ever seen. It was amazing, not just the wrestling itself, but the production and the storylines and characters. A ninja skeleton that breaks arms for his dark master, an actual dragon, a biker who started out as a jobber and grew into a cult hero, a teleporting succubus? sorceress? ghost? who can summon skeletons, and the lucha libre personification of death itself, just to name a few. The first season was so ridiculously good that I was momentarily slightly worried that season 2 would be a letdown, that they had blown their wad on season 1. I mean, how do you possibly follow up a season as good as that? Then season 2 starts with Vampiro in some kind of secret mental facility in the middle of the desert trying to get his release while fantasizing about murdering his interviewer and drinking his blood. Cut to The Temple where Mil Muertes is sitting up high watching over the crowd and the ring while sitting in a skull throne. A MOTHER****ING SKULL THRONE (I cannot possibly bold or capitalize that enough). And the show just got better and better from there. Behold the unfathomable badassery. Bask in its glory. Lucha Underground, I'm so sorry I ever doubted you for even a second. It's so good to have you back in my life.

In fairness, that quote was made at a time when most video game stories consisted of "Robot Ninjas Kidnapped the President" and not much more. Gaming has evolved since then. I agree not all games need a deep, well written story. Games come in all shapes, sizes, and varieties. There are story-driven games and there are gameplay-driven games. Story-driven games obviously need a good story with well thought out characters or they will fall flat on their face (/glances disapprovingly in David Cage's direction) since story is the core pillar of the game. Gameplay-driven games don't necessarily need much story at all, though they can still benefit from one.

Fair enough. I'll defer to your Titanfall knowledge since it's a game I know much less about.

Point taken. My point is that there is not a single "right way" to play a game. Obviously, this applies more strongly to a single-player game where the game is confined to only you playing the game. As an example, I spent probably a good 10 hours in Oblivion's Shivering Isles expansion (still the single greatest thing Bethesda has ever produced) running around New Sheoth, finding ways to get on top of structures and jumping from roof to roof, finding a place, thinking "can I get up there?", then proceeding to get up there and seeing what places I could jump to once I got up there. I had a blast. In the confines of a competitive multiplayer game, you have other players to contend with, so things change. You can still experiment in those games and try out new and wacky things to do. It's easier in a competitive game where you play as a lone player (deathmatch or whatever), in a team game you have other people on your team depending on you, but even in those games there is room for experimentation. And you don't necessarily have to be a master of the traditional method to do it either. You can do wacky things in pubs in DotA that are completely bonkers and off the wall and without being a seasoned player who has played the game the traditional way for months or years and they may even work. Sure, those cheese strats would never work at the pro level, but if you're not playing at the pro level then who cares? Cheese strats even sometimes work at the pro level, though they're generally refined by the pros to make them work. The pros obviously have an intimate knowledge of the game and all the systems, you have to be to play at that level, but the original idea may have come from someone just starting out who has little knowledge or desire to play the traditional way. A pro saw the cheese strat, saw it worked sometimes in pubs, knew it wouldn't work as is at pro level, but tweaked a few things to modify it so that it might sometimes work at the pro level.

You don't get to decide what "the right way" to play a game is for me. No one does, not even the developer. How someone plays a game is a completely individual preference. People derive enjoyment from games in different ways. In a single player environment I fully agree with this sentiment. Once you step into a competitive online game environment... You play by the rules and styles the game has setup to make you competitive. If you don't then you cannot play the game competitively and you will be at a disadvantage. This is not the game's fault. If you don't care about winning in an online competitive mode then do what you want to do. It's your game to play as you will. Somewhat disagree. It's the people that think outside the box and go against the grain that create the strategies that eventually become accepted as viable ways to play the game. If no one thinks outside the box then you will have a stagnant game with a single style of playing and everyone conforming to it. I'll give you an example from a game I know exponentially better than Titanfall. In DotA, the regular way of winning the game is to group up once you feel your team is strong enough and push the enemy base and win by sheer force and superior team fight execution, often with the help of something like the aegis. Then someone came up with Rat DotA, which goes against all of that. You avoid fights, you pull the opposing team around the map, sometimes sacrificing a hero or two to get their attention, meanwhile another member of your team sneaks into their base while they're occupied elsewhere and does structural damage to it. When it was first attempted it was going against the "right way" to play the game, now it's an accepted strategy since it was proven effective, winning games and even entire tournaments. Never would have happened had someone not thought outside the accepted structure of the game.

If I want to stack the chess pieces into a pyramid and use the chessboard as a dartboard and that's what makes me happy, then that's the right way to play it for me. Sure, I won't win any tournaments that way, but I don't care about that.

You don't get to decide what "the right way" to play a game is for me. No one does, not even the developer. How someone plays a game is a completely individual preference. People derive enjoyment from games in different ways.

More Attractio. I really like the puzzles, but the voice acting is killing me. Dear lord... I can't even.

You'll never believe this, but Mighty No. 9 has been delayed yet again.

Well, the first game came right down to the wire. The second game, not so much.

Granted, I've only played a few AC games and not the complete 8237 games in the series, but from my rather limited experience, I enjoy the story and the games overall the most when they stick to the self-contained story within that particular title. When they go into the overarching Pieces of Eden, Minerva, etc. stuff I lose interest.

I took a few days off from Satellite Reign. It's a fairly long game. I've mostly been playing Attractio. Hilariously bad voice acting aside, I'm really enjoying the game. The puzzles are challenging enough to get my cognitive juices flowing, but I've yet to encounter any puzzle that's gotten me really frustrated. I feel the difficulty curve is pretty good so far. Hopefully the difficulty keeps ramping up and I run into some truly devious puzzles toward the end of the game.

Is there anybody left from the Baldur's Gate days now?

It was the same way in Black Flag. I think they were called berserker darts or something in that game. You just hid in the bushes, shot a dart into the beefiest enemy around and he'd just kill like 3 dudes before they killed him. Lather, rinse, repeat. Super easy.

At the moment, it's okay for making simple dungeon crawls but woefully inadequate to make anything story driven. Much needed features (branching dialogue, static level enemies, etc.) are coming in the near future for making story-driven, non-linear campaigns. I think you're pretty much confined to Sword Coast and Underdark right now, but I haven't messed with it much, so I could be wrong.

I love the look of the game. I purposely skipped around and didn't let the video play for more than a minute at a time, because I'm avoiding spoilers like the plague until I get my grubby little fingers on the finished product, but I saw enough to appreciate the visuals.

No key remapping? What? Are you ****ing kidding me? I know that may sound like a nitpick, but it's really not. Custom hotkeys are crucial to a RTS. That is either an oversight of epic proportions or one heck of a boneheaded design decision. Hopefully, it's something they can patch in.

It will have a much bigger impact on compute applications than it will on gaming. Still, it's a step forward and progress is always good.