TheChris92

Get back to it already, you!

Oh, hai Allan! I only just now realized it was you. Didn't know you roamed these parts too. I take back everything I said about BioWare now xP

Well welcome to the forums, I am enjoying your posts and input Oh and welcome to the forums as well Silvermoondragon Thank you! I like yours too. Good to have nice discussions. I don't overtly participate on the discussions on BSN anymore because I severely dislike most of the forumites there. I like the feel of this one so far and actually prefer most of Obsidian's games over BioWare. One of my first western-RPGs were Kotor 2 which I found way more fun and interesting than the first game.

I'm not sure I'd agree, especially given you picked Garrus and I don't recall feeling the same way (and extending into ME3, he's probably one of my favourite "friend characters" in a lot of gaming). Really? Because the transition from ME1 to ME2. What did Garrus learn from Shepard's speech about not rushing into things? He joins a squad on Omega and ends up getting mopey it about after they all end up dead so he swears revenge. In other words -- He's learned absolutely nothing. And you have to 'fix' him again. He only gets that proper development if one romances him in ME2. Same with Jack -- She only ever truly opens up should you choose to romance her. It's fine if you like Garrus. I'd hardly call him the only character who doesn't really get much development at all from my perspective. am finding your pov to be somewhat... trite. don't take offense, 'cause we sees similar issues with the bio romances and as you like those, perhaps we is actual complementing you. for the nonce, we will ignore the opportunities for double-entendre and bad pun related to your poor word choice in stating that jack "only ever truly opens up," as it relates to romance. that being said, a companion achieving some kinda enlightenment via the half-dozen or so tangential and optional romance dialogues in-game is just one of the things that is terribly and irredeemably wrong with bio romances. the synthetic drama o' bio romances, almost wholly dependent on laboured exposition, is creating a tangential story arc that occurs at speeds greater than the normandy may achieve-- is difficult to describe resulting climax as satisfactory when it comes with such brevity. (<-- intentional) as damaged as bio seems wont to make the companions (wanna talk about melodrama?) achieving epiphany through childishly superficial and abbreviated romantic dialogues is straining not only credulity but good taste as well. sadly, we sees your characterization o' romanced garrus and jack as complete bass ackwards-- the romances destroy characters. is ironic. we recognize that bio's romance scheme is complete broken and utterly beyond repair. as long as romances is optional and tangential they will necessarily suffer. at the same time, the only reason we can endure bio's clumsy romance efforts is 'cause they is optional and tangential-- we need not actual experience the libelous pretense o' those abominations bio/ea has the temerity to label "romances." HA! Good Fun! Don't take offense - But I have no idea what you just said sunshine. There is definitely a point in this incoherent mess of exposition -- So, let me just say that I liked Jack's character arc but I did not really find it fulfilling. Once I saw the romance part on Youtube, however, it was a different story. Feel free to disagree though.

I'm obviously new to the Obsidian forums so I can't say I'm familiar with the people too much except for the few people I recognize from the BSN.

Love the soundtrack in Persona 3 & 4 alike.

What do you mean my point? How is that related to anything I've been talking about. I'd almost go as far as to ask what the point in this line of questioning is. The fact that they are optional doesn't make them immune to criticism. Downright ridiculous to think otherwise. It's like saying "Hey, that mage armor sure is awkwardly designed, but because I'm playing a warrior then I can't really comment". I've just spent most of my previous posts discussing my feelings on how I feel romances have become shallow. - What is there to prove? There's nothing. I'm stating my opinion in regards to a question a user earlier asked me about whether I felt I was in this or that crowd. Feel free to disagree

Think you misunderstood what I said there. Read it like this "The romances have become obsessively token" -- That is to say, they will always be there and despite them being constantly tagged as 'optional' they still come off as being a priority for BioWare.

I appreciate what Sarkeesian is fighting for I just don't believe she's getting the message across properly.

I hate multiplayer - Unless it was an elaborate co-op mechanic which the game was designed with then yes. In this case it isn't.

The problem I see is that romances shouldn't be the key to progressing in character arcs. To me, Garrus did not change at all and did not learn from his mistakes even in ME3. Basically the switch in writers allowed the new writer (Patrick Weekes) to write him as a wise-cracking scoundrel all of sudden instead of just another cardboard cut-out Mac Walters character eating metal and chewing screws for breakfast. So yes, he essentially gained a personality as opposed to developing one. In the Persona games for instance, the romance option exists to open new doorways to take the character. In Mass Effect 'seqeuels' it felt forced and I didn't feel like the characters of Garrus or Tali grew at all outside of the romances, they've just been there collecting dust in the Normandy from the first game which I suppose gives them some sort of sentimental value.

I'm not sure I'd agree, especially given you picked Garrus and I don't recall feeling the same way (and extending into ME3, he's probably one of my favourite "friend characters" in a lot of gaming). Really? Because the transition from ME1 to ME2. What did Garrus learn from Shepard's speech about not rushing into things? He joins a squad on Omega and ends up getting mopey it about after they all end up dead so he swears revenge. In other words -- He's learned absolutely nothing. And you have to 'fix' him again. He only gets that proper development if one romances him in ME2. Same with Jack -- She only ever truly opens up should you choose to romance her. It's fine if you like Garrus. I'd hardly call him the only character who doesn't really get much development at all from my perspective.

Recently finished watching Sofia Coppola's The Bling Ring and here's my verdict on a film that has received a mixed reception. First of all I love Sofia & her father's work. Awesome stuff. The Bling Ring centers around a group of high schoolers, or was it college kids? Whom all end up tagging along by circumstance of the classic trop 'new kid arriving into town and getting involved with a bad crowd' -- Personified, in this case, by the wrong girl. Emma Watson is stunning, and a bit naughty in one particular scene that has spanned thousands of gif-pictures on Tumblr. The overall acting isn't really something to praise overall. This is not Watson's a-game as I feel most of these teenage characters falls too far into stereotypes, but perhaps I'm reading it wrong since it's based on a true story. But the characters didn't feel like actual people but rather walking clichés. The very moment that main character, Marc, steps into his new high school he immediately gets branded out as a loser, because why not, didn't he know that curly is so out of style, yo! The Bling Ring commits a the traditional terrible sin of in relations to films about portraying teenagers and their issues so poorly as it does. Disregarding that I found the story to be okay told if a bit lacking in development. The amount of time between each "heist" is just too short and it feels quite staged. The film is about five teenagers who think that happiness lies in brands and instant fame, but it does little to disprove this theory. On contrary, in relations to what I said before. It feels quite staged and repetitive in its narrtive. Somewhere along the middle part of the film, for example, we get to see the young people break into a celeb house (No idea whose house because the film does seem to forget about it as it goes on) and getting away with it, breaking into it and getting away with it, breaking into it and getting away with it. It's preposterous. What's even worse is that it is incredibly hard to care about these characters at all, or why they doing it, partly because the story itself "Stealing from pop-culture icons like Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton" isn't that interesting, but also because most of the characters have the charisma of a cardboard cut-out. The soundtrack is a mix of decent tracks to the atrociousness of Kanye West, which is unsual, because this is what Sofia Coppola usually always do right. Getting the soundtrack right that is. This is a film that promotes itself as being opposed to the superficial celebrity culture that date back over a large part of the media. In a way, "The Bling Ring" is also against this culture, but celebrates it at the same time, because Coppola is ultimately afraid to take a definitive position. The Final Verdict -- It's an okay film with little to go for it as it heavily falls into stereotypes.

Interesting, so what camp would you say you in? The proud and noble promancers or the lonely and melancholic anti-romance crowd? I would most likely put myself in the 'proud and noble promancers' catagory...way too much a hopeless romantic here . However, I fully understand and even agree with the opinions and points of the other side as well. Ideally, romances shouldn't be so ingrained into the plot of a story that you either miss out on potentially integral content (character or plot wise) or become the end all and be all of a game (depending on what it is of course). And sex has become too much of an 'endgame' in some cases, which depending on the game, kinda irks me. Like I said, I love romances in games and feel they can add an additional depth and enjoyment to my playing experience, however many romances now feel somewhat cheesy, rushed, obvious and, well...stereotypical. Regardless, depending on the game, romances will often be a major bonus for me that I tend to indulge in Yes, exactly -- I'd like to think that my criticism is also partly based on BioWare's own behavior towards the romances. One bloke at BioWare felt like he wanted to point out how they are focusing on making the sex scenes tasteful, which as positive as it may sound first-hand, it sounds like this "So what?". It's this kind of mentality, where the romances are no longer optional content, and something as trivial as a 10-second sex scene has become priority. What is the fascination with the sex scenes exactly? I'd hardly consider them the heart of the romance and at best unimportant. I mean, they don't have to be underpants humping, like Origins, but the idea of including sex scenes for the sake of having them like they are HBO or something is just ludicrous. Sex is beautiful thing and shouldn't be censored, but there needs to be a context for them. Make them feel genuine BioWare. Make them feel alive and provoking. You don't need sex for that. Seriously.

Most be the 3 in the title -- This explains why BioWare didn't call Dragon Age Inquistion for DA3. It wasn't because of the logical fact that Dragon Age isn't a story about something in particular as it is a story about their world. Nah, it's the coloured endings! ;D

All I have to say right now is.. Charles Dance in Witcher 3. Sold.

For me it's the opposite. I don't get the love for the first Witcher. :D Anyway, I'm gonna say Too Human. Because it's bad. Not in that wishy-washy, mediocre way, where I had to admit that at least the combat was fun or slightly more entertaining than banging my head against the wall. x)

Should have given them names like "Jimmy-Nine-****" or "Butter Four-Fingers" to really bring in that Guy Richie parody.

I see -- I suppose I might have some ideas & opinions now to share. Thanks for clarification!

Interesting, so what camp would you say you in? The proud and noble promancers or the lonely and melancholic anti-romance crowd? Haha! A difficult question to answer. Before I'll even attempt to answer it, I'll say this. I know that Chris Avellone's opinion is less than encourgaging about it all if not humorous. I don't know about the rest of Obsidian though and the people on this forum in general. On the forum formerly known as the BSN it's generally regarded as top priority. With every bit of news it'll always provoke discussions of whether "Can I romance this character" etc. And i feel this is reflected in BioWare's games as well. The characters have become shallow puppets that won't open up until you use the power of romance to conquer the door to their character development. They even went so far as making a DLC all about that, being all retro-campy, eyes-rolling-180-degrees-into-their- sockets-self-aware about it with The Citadel. On one hand I kinda enjoyed it, on the other I found it completely out of place for sci-fi opera that Mass Effect was supposed to be. Inconsistent tone that is. Anyway, let me see if I can answer. What I like about the romances in the older BioWare games, or in the Persona games, is that they feel genuine with plenty of heart put into them. The ones in the Persona games feel natural, the conversations are down to the earth, they are engaging and sparkles with emotions. They didn't need sex scenes with pants-on-dry-humping, to express the characters feelings towards one another or showcase their growth as human beings, characters etc. I actually liked that about the ME1 romances as well with the human characters. To me they felt like real people. This was back when BioWare had their top writers onboard, before they all left to ZeniMax, Blizzard or wherever. Nowadays they feel token, or like BioWare is basically just 'throwing people a bone' and it hurts the quality, because the insane amount of craving from arch-fanboys/girls will make sure they'll always be there. I think this just goes to show that the best games are made from what people 'didn't ask for'. This is a bit of a cardboard answer but I'm probably in the middle, maybe leaning a bit towards the melancholic crowd. I'm all for romances if BioWare could somehow step it up and actually add some chemistry to conversations between the two intimate parties and make it feel genuine.

That I pretty much knew already - What I don't know is what exactly defines the supposed C-RPG. Is Witcher a CRPG? Is Dragon Age Origins? Could Bloodlines be defined as a C-RPG? Can you give me some examples and explanations, as to why the said examples are defined as such.

Got most of my news from a documentary-maker & journalist I'm following. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/in-defense-of-instagramming-conflict-in-crimea/284279/ This one is actually interesting -- http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116927/i-have-seen-bravery-and-death-ukraine

Speaking of Top Gun - I love Tarantino's verdict on what Top Gun really is about in Sleep With Me

I thought the problem with Bioshock Infinite was that he had the amount of free reign to make the game he wanted, he just couldn't make up his mind as to what that was. This is a reference to the story, right? xD Anyway, that's not the impression I got. Otherwise I'd believe the game would have been released earlier than it did.. I think. It felt kinda desperate with the way of changing the boxart to attract the dudebros and how most of the content in the game was cut. The philosophy with Ken Levine's gameography (excluding Thief) is that there's some kind of matronly school teacher standing behind him repeatedly going: "Now do it again, but properly this time." It all started out with System Shock 2, which was basically being System Shock but without the wacky cyberspace mini-game, but with an unbalanced skill system, and looking like an arse made out of Lego. Then there was Bioshock, basically being System Shock 2 with more imagination and no longer having to put 6 points into 'Exotic Weapons Proficiency' to figure out how to **** people over the head with a piece of jagged rock. And now we have BioShock Infinite, which is basically BioShock reversed, which of course is the plot-twist as well.

CRPG is short from computer or console role playing game, so it's definition is RPG that is made for computer or/and console. And then it's everyone's own choice to decide what games they perceive to be RPGs See - That's what I mean. The definition of what makes an RPG.. well, an RPG, is so thin that you could smear it all out on a croissant. But I'm gonna go ahead with what you said. It's an RPG that is generally designed for PC-gaming first, consoles second etc. Is a turn based RPG for people who don't like turn based RPGs. Uhmmm, okay! Like, an RPG where there is no turn-based combat? xD