|
Post by Friendly Person :) on Apr 15, 2019 1:20:26 GMT -5
Yeah, having finished now, I definitely enjoyed that much more. Now that my understanding of the game has developed, I can easily refute some of my earlier impressions. Districts: While it may be possible to have one of every district in a city, good effing luck getting the population for it. Even then, it doesn't seem like a particularly good idea. Near the end I found that I'd rather have the resource tile than build certain districts. Which is more helpful: a completely unnecessary entertainment district, or extra food/production? It feels like a middle ground, where I'm still gonna always have campus districts and market districts in every city, but there's more thought to deciding which goes where and when. Although even then, I found myself passing on a campus in at least one city because I felt I had enough science going. Boosts: While still a big deal, as I said, they can't compete with a solid science or culture output. I want to start playing on Epic speed as opposed to standard, because I feel like on standard things obsolesce much too quickly. Rather than each era feeling like a defined period, everything just feels like a race to the finish. I'll be curious to see how boosts come into play then, since they are percentage based. Gold: It's not as useless as I gave it credit for. To be honest, in both 5 and 6 the way I used gold changed from stock-piling a sh*t-load for end-game to using it to grab things I'd rather not spend the time producing. Get into a war? Just pump out some units. Need builders? Buy 'em. Need traders? Buy 'em. Rather than an OP issue, stacking gold (in both games) feels more like having a very solid support pillar.
Policy Cards: This is one feature that I'm still conflicted on. Along with tall vs wide, I feel one of the distinct differences between Civ 5 and 6 is macro vs micro (management). I like the return to unlocking new systems of governance, as well as the way some of the cards interact with each other for powerful bonuses. However, as I discussed with Derman, I feel like Civ is the poster-child for 4x strategy games because of its accessibility. Where other games go full-on number-cruncher, Civ excels in making the consequences of every decision very apparent. Currently the civics policies get too nitty-gritty with their bonuses, and seem to require too much micro-management to really get the most out of. 30% faster builders or 50% faster settlers are not particularly engaging choices to weigh, meanwhile reduced unit maintenance cost can save stupid amounts of money throughout the course of the game. Like everything else, my stance on this could change the more I play, but right now it feels like a good idea in need of some reballancing.
I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Point is, there's a lot about 6 that, once you start understand how the system works, leaves a lot of room for exploitation and experimentation. Also I thought everyone figured out Jon was a Targaryian (f*ck spelling) back in like, 2011?
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 15, 2019 17:09:06 GMT -5
Yeah, districts are less about getting them all and more about which one do I want to have where and when. Like you said, sometimes you get a new district slot, but you're so far along that, meh, the time spent building it is better invested elsewhere in that city. Ideally, you have cities that super-specialize, so your other cities don't have to worry about being jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.
I've never played on any speed other than standard. Would be curious to hear your thoughts on that and how the game balances.
I think I kind of like the micro-strategy of Civ 6 vs. Civ 5. It allows for some more dynamic gameplay; I can swap stuff in and out as my needs change easily. I always have a general goal in Civ, but in the moment, maybe I want to pump out a critical wonder in a hurry and then swap back into saving money or something.
I accidentally happened on Tales music performed by the Tokyo Philharmonic today. Specifically, this:
I want to play Abyss again so badly now. I love Mirrors/Meaning of Birth. The scene in which Meaning of Birth plays is easily, hands down, my favorite scene in games/movies/books/insert medium here, ever. Tales of the Abyss has its flaws (don't get me started on Natalia's whole "traitor" thing), but I honestly love Luke's story. It's the media I've thought back most on in my life.
I think the only other media I can think of that moved me anywhere close as deeply was the novel Flowers for Algernon. I've never stopped thinking about that book. There are some things you encounter in your life that fundamentally change how you think about the human experience. That was Flowers for Algernon for me.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Person :) on Apr 15, 2019 19:46:15 GMT -5
It’s funny you say that: for my birthday I’m looking at a hardcover copy of Wind-Up Bird. Thing is, the only hardbacks are first editions, which came out in 97. The one I found was $140 in great condition, but that’s still a lot for a book. Personally I don’t care though: it’s the book that transformed the way I look at fiction, so I want a copy that will outlive me.
As for Abyss, do you ever wonder if it’s a matter of being in the right place at the right time? That is to say, you were the right age/mindset for that type of story to really hit home with you? I don’t mean this as an attack against Abyss, but it’s something I’ve thought of both in terms of the continuing quality of Tales as a series, as well as our broader discussions about shifting tastes.
It’s no exaggeration to say that Abyss is frequently cited as having the best story in the franchise. I also think it’d be fair to attribute this more to Luke’s arc than the entire cast (who I won’t get into, because that’s tangential to my point). However, if you go back and look at Luke’s arc, it’s all very anime. That is to say, both his personality and the presentation shifts in terms of extremes, without much middle ground or nuance. Again, I’m trying to criticise this point, I’m just trying to bring it up as a point.
I bring up in the two contexts I mentioned earlier: Firstly, would this type of story appeal to you/us/people today? Secondly, does nostalgia for this particular story cast an inescapable shadow on other character arcs?
To my knowledge, I don’t think anyone here watches a lot of TV anime anymore. I’m aware you watched Eva recently, and I have shifted towards movies, but on the whole I think it’s fair to say our feelings toward the medium have cooled. While a lot of that can be attributed to the quality of the stuff being put out, I get the sense that we’re looking for something more nuanced than what you’ll find in a heavily-commercialised medium aimed primarily at teenagers and shut-ins. Considering that (especially in light of your opinions on GoT as the show has progressed), I’m curious how you think you would react to Abyss had it come out recently. Would you even give it the time of day?
I’m not inherently against this type of ‘right-time, right-place’ nostalgia. I can think of several things that happened to catch me in the perfect mood, and my enjoyment of them is mostly contingent on recalling that first experience. Arguably I encountered Murakami at a time when I was actively looking to expand my horizons.
However, I begin to wonder when ‘collective nostalgia’ begins taking a turn for this worse. This gets into my second point. The general consensus among the fanbase is that the series has taken a bit of a decline post-Graces. There are pretty much a metric butt-load of reasons why, but one thing I firmly disagree with is the idea that the characters have gotten worse. I’ve argued in the past that Xillia had the potential to bring a Luke-tier arc to everyone, but since it’s incomplete I won’t deny that it’s ultimately a failure. Zestiria also royally f*cked what it was trying to do, but again I wouldn’t chalk that up to the characters so-much as sh*tty writing.
But that brings us to Berseria. Once again, it’s not the entire cast that features a large arc, but rather Velvet and [Todd Howard] at the core. Rokuro and Eizen both feature lesser arcs, but tend to fill the mature, parental role that Tear and Guy did. Magilou is, like Jade, pretty much an already-developed troll (but with a surprisingly serious undercurrent), and Elanor is a less annoying Anise, but both serve the role of being jerked around by the church...
... you know what, I don’t care what point I was trying to make. Now I’m beginning to wonder if the reason I like Berseria’s cast so much is that the dynamic is so similar to Abyss’... Fug...
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 15, 2019 23:49:57 GMT -5
As for Abyss, do you ever wonder if it’s a matter of being in the right place at the right time? That is to say, you were the right age/mindset for that type of story to really hit home with you? I don’t mean this as an attack against Abyss, but it’s something I’ve thought of both in terms of the continuing quality of Tales as a series, as well as our broader discussions about shifting tastes. It’s no exaggeration to say that Abyss is frequently cited as having the best story in the franchise. I also think it’d be fair to attribute this more to Luke’s arc than the entire cast (who I won’t get into, because that’s tangential to my point). However, if you go back and look at Luke’s arc, it’s all very anime. That is to say, both his personality and the presentation shifts in terms of extremes, without much middle ground or nuance. Again, I’m trying to criticise this point, I’m just trying to bring it up as a point. I bring up in the two contexts I mentioned earlier: Firstly, would this type of story appeal to you/us/people today? It's a valid question. I think my answer would still be yes, I would still like it. I think it comes down to what I want out of media. I love stories where you're privy to a main character's low self-esteem and struggle to accept oneself. I think it's because I am an intensely self-critical person; when things go wrong, the first person I blame is myself. Luke's self-loathing mantra was, at one point, my own. I've obviously gotten over it, but those grooves are etched in my mind. I get it. I'm always going to get it. It's why I think Eva's a poorly written train wreck, but I can't dismiss it, because I see my reflection in Shinji. (This does not, mind you, make Eva good. It wasn't.) Even now, I still find stories with such characters refreshing, because they remind me that people aren't infallible. Everyone has fears and anxiety to an extent, but people naturally put up a good front. I naturally assume other people are perfect, so it's just me lugging around insecurities. A lot of media doesn't delve into the darker headspace of its characters, and I wish it did. Did Abyss do it perfectly? No, but at least it tried. I haven't encountered much media since that attempted to develop a character like that. I suspect they don't do it because it's difficult. It's far easier to come up with a plot that centers around events, rather than the unfolding of someone's personal growth. Moreover, my own hangups aside, what makes Abyss more likable than other games of its genre? I watched the Abyss anime when I was still in high school, a couple years after I played Abyss for the first time. It's very faithful to the game, except it stripped out all of Luke's mental self-flagellation. That was anime, and I didn't like it even then. The plot of Abyss when you take out Luke is, well, pretty mediocre. It's just another JRPG. Hell, Van feels like just another evil villain in the show. In the game, Luke is desperate for his approval, and that longing humanizes Van in a way? You feel for Luke--you want him to be accepted by the teacher Luke respects so dearly. He's not just a villain. And--not gonna lie, who gives a sh*t about replicas or the world falling apart in the show? You give a sh*t in the game because Luke is a replica, and the world falling apart is his fault and he feels like a complete piece of sh*t about it. Luke is the conduit for making the game's events mean something. In most other games, you're a passive observer. I wouldn't have even bought it if it came out today. JRPGs, even if I liked them still, are way too much of a time commitment. Let's say I did buy Abyss--would I have beaten it? Well, it's got a slow beginning, and it does take a long time (15ish hours) to start getting to the real stuff. The chances I'd put in enough time to get past Cheagle Woods, probably like 0? It's definitely not the worst as far as anime tropes goes in the beginning, but it also doesn't really stand out. I'd have had no reason to think the game would be a smashing home run if I just got to the 15 hour mark, because anime-esque things usually end up aggravating me the longer I engage with them. I still think I would have bitten if I got past Akzeriuth, since that's when it gets to the elements I like. Oh, no, trust me, I have no illusions--I don't like new Tales games because I'm not 15. I will contend no matter what Xillia sucked, but Berseria's probably a fine game. Don't doubt I'd have finished it if I'd played it in high school. Do I hold other games against Abyss for comparison? You betcha. I also do the same thing with Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. It's not that I think they're the best thing ever with no flaws, but, rather, both of them hit on "aha, yes, this is what I want in my game/anime." And... then... well, most game and anime aren't like that, so stuff I would've found fine just doesn't do it for me anymore. It's like eating McDonald's all your life, having a decent hamburger somewhere, and realizing, wait, what the f**k am I doing eating McDonald's? So, some of it's just about maturity, but some of it's also just realizing what I want out of my games/movies. I'm not going to eat at McDonald's if I discover I don't have to. If I had an even better hamburger somewhere, wherever the f**k my Abyss hamburger came from would be a lot less tasty. It's all relative. Hell, I feel the same way about other things in my life. There are lots of things I used to love doing until I found derivative X, started on that, and now the original thing I loved feels basic and boring. It's certainly not unique to tastes in media. Whose collective nostalgia are we talking about here, incidentally? I haven't given a sh*t what the Tales fanbase thinks since 2009. Their assessment has no bearing on mine. The fanbase adores Vesperia, for chrissakes. edit: I would love to remove this stupid as** word filter sometime. It is the bane of my existence, especially with how it changes sh*t to crap with no spaces so you have three words strung together with no spacing. Drives me nuts. I've been on this forum for 10 years, man, I should have some privileges with my cursewords and you youngins should get off my godd*mn lawn. (Sh*t, have I really been on this forum for 10 years?) edit2: UGH the stupid word filter changed godd*mn to gosh darn in my previous edit!!! SCREW YOU TOO
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Person :) on Apr 16, 2019 1:22:21 GMT -5
It's funny, because I initially typed out, 'The second part, which has less to do with you' before nixing it because I figured you'd instinctively separate yourself from any kind of 'collective nostalgia'. As for what I mean by that, well, it's the community last I checked, which was around 2016 (holy crap, I'm nearly 3 years removed from those mongoloids! Huzzah!). I go out of my way to avoid 'collectives', because anymore it's just a festering of sh*t opinions. Many of them are driven by the collective nostalgia, such as:
Tales of Symphonia isn't completely dated and the plot isn't a mess of half-baked ideas. Tales of the Abyss has the best story in the entire series. Tales of Vesperia is the best game in the series (maybe the re-release killed this one b/c no more import f*gs?). Tales of Graces has the best combat.
However true any of these are on an individual basis, there was a cult mentality around them that just hung around like a festering cloud.
Also, wait a minute -- where is this whole "Eva is not good" comment coming from? Is my memory re-writing history again? I thought you enjoyed it quite a bit? This is seriously throwing me off.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 16, 2019 7:45:30 GMT -5
Yeah, I dunno. I've had time to think about it, and began rewatching the show as I read the manga. Didn't get super far (like episode 5 or something), but that and time solidified my opinions more.
When I ask myself, what are the qualities that makes something good, I'm not sure Eva meets them entirely. The plot is poorly paced, occasionally sliding in a meatier episode in once in a while amid repetitive monster-of-the-week episodes that make up the majority of the show. I wasn't sure I even enjoyed the show at all until episode 17, and the thing's only 26 episodes long. All throughout, Shinji's character development leaps forward--then recoils back--then leaps forward--then recoils back. It's not in a believable way, since there were more than a few instances where something happened or he reacted a certain way, and I was surprised and confused--wasn't he over this? Re-reading the manga, which smooths over some of this, drove home the point that no, it wasn't me just not "getting" something, the show just handled it poorly.
I think the show has the potential to be more, but when I ask myself, is a show that had poor pacing and jerky character development well-written? Is it good? I can't honestly say yes. I like the premise; I like Shinji; I loved the ending. There are a lot of elements I like. And I understand why it became a hit--it attempted to do stuff other shows hadn't done. I respect it for that. But it doesn't change the fact that the writing was a total trainwreck. There are glimmers of significant potential in the midst of what very narrowly missed being a generic 90s anime.
In enough respects to matter, I liked it, and I don't regret watching it, but I hesitate to recommend to anyone else. There were redeeming elements for me, but the flaws are significant enough that I honestly genuinely don't know if it would just come off as a hot mess to someone else. (Which brings up an interesting question--if something has flaws, when do you write it off altogether vs. still appreciating some of what it did?)
I do intend on finishing the manga and watching the revamped stuff on Netflix, though. I haven't been able to write the thing off altogether, and revised pacing would help a lot. Again, I like the overall premise; it was just very rough at the edge and suffered for it.
|
|
Derman
Oracle Knight
I still don't have a knife tag on my golden birth knife
Posts: 194
|
Post by Derman on Apr 16, 2019 10:44:07 GMT -5
Watched the GoT episode yesterday (after finally getting my password reset email from HBO because I couldn't remember which password I was using there, took them almost two days). I feel like the same problem you mentioned about the Sam-Dan scene going straight to Sam-Jon happens everywhere. They are finally gathering all the characters in one place and there's so much potential drama, and they just decide to blow everything at the start. You have Arya meeting Hound, and that conversation lasts for a few seconds, and you get to Arya-Gendry immediately after (it might be just because I wanted to see more of Arya-Hound, and was disappointed because that was all I got). Either way, it was jarring jumping from one character moment to another constantly. You have so many characters meeting again for the first time. It's almost if they had a checklist of all the character meetings they had to go through to tie some loose ends, and were going through them in order. I'm glad they saved Jaime and Bran for the cliffhanger, because now I get to hope they'll do that right and have something to look forward to for next episode. When it comes to Dan and Jon, I can almost see where they are going with it. Dan wanted to 'break the wheel', but now it seems she's suddenly obsessed with people respecting her and in general doesn't feel like the good queen she's supposed to be. I'm not sure if the show is trying to make me hate her on purpose. But now that Dan has been established as a failure basically, I can see why bringing Jon's parents up would serve the plot. They have a way to push Jon back to 'king in the north' which makes all of the northerners happy, and he has a valid claim for the throne. They'll probably kill off Dan at some point to avoid the drama between those two (because I don't see a how that would turn out without the whole thing imploding), so Jon can be alone as the chosen one who unites the people and all that stuff. On Luke's character arc being very anime: I mentioned this before, but I think the skits really help make the character arc a lot smoother. I've watched the anime as well, and it doesn't give enough time for the viewers to see Luke's personality properly because it only gives small slices that are directly relevant to the story. The thing with huge JRPGs is that there's a lot of fluff, and many chances to flesh out characters with different interactions, and Tales just went further than most with the skit system. And that is what I like about Luke's character arc (aside from it being relatable). You get to really grow with the character and relate to all the little moments, not just the big cutscenes with heavy emotions. The growth feels natural, because you are with those characters all the time, not just during story scenes. I don't think the way Luke's character arc is told is perfect, I think there's some of that lack of nuance that's common in anime even in the game. It's been a while since I played that game and I'm happy to admit that there might be some nostalgia goggles involved. My standards have changed ( thanks grain, you've ruined so much for me) and I might not look at it the same way if I played it now. There could be some "right place, right time" there too. And since Luke's character arc hits so many personal spots, it's easy to feel more strongly about it, which obviously makes it hard to be objective. Joey's feelings toward Eva are very similar to how I feel about the chinese sci-fi novels. Three-Body Problem was one of the worst novels I've read in a long time, if not the worst ever. The characters were all cardboard scientist that had no personality, the plot was at its core a generic alien invasion thing, and the way it was told wasn't anything special either. The writing was dry, and is basically all tell, no show. It clearly wants to say something about the role of humans in a universe and all that. And when I say clearly, it means that it's rubbing it in your face with pages of exposition about different reasons why humans haven't been contacted from outside. But there are things in it that just I just can't completely brush off. It's the reason it didn't feel like a waste of time, and I'm glad I read it. Maybe it's the fact that it taught me something about chinese history, or how it used physics problem to create an interesting video game concept (god, I wish somebody made that a reality in some way). Or how, despite the writing being really pretty generic 99% of the time, it manages to have some insightful parts here and there. I'm still halfway through the second book, and it's just as bad as the first one, so I'm not sure if I'll ever finish reading them. I want it to get better, and I want it to prove that it has something planned that will catch me off guard. But this far it's just relied on clever hard sci-fi gimmicks that are fine, but not enough to save the story. HolycrapI spent almost two hours writing this post... time moves fast. I also had this playing in the background for most of it, I'll never be able to get it out of my head now. I want to try some code injections on the language filter sometime. I don't know how well it's sanitized, but you could probably fix some of the horrible word replacements that way.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 16, 2019 20:57:41 GMT -5
Yeah, the meeting of all of the characters was very forced, and I don't think most of the re-introductions got their full justice done as a result. I think the show tried very quickly to get everyone together again to set up the plot for upcoming episodes. Could've been done better, though... maybe they could have cut that stupid scene where Jon and Dany go flying on dragons? My coworker was joking she was half-expecting them to break out into "A Whole New World," and... ya know, she's kinda right--it was cheesy enough that a Disney song could've fit right in just fine. (Me, I was hoping Jon would fall off to his anticlimactic death.)
I mean, I kinda get the set-up you're laying out? But it's... really forced. I think the earlier seasons could have absolutely weaved that set-up in naturally, but GoT has devolved into abrupt turn-abouts and telling, not showing. In a lot of ways, actually, it's like Eva (!) now. The storytelling relies on picking its entire heavy self to reposition and reaim. From the viewer's perspective, you can follow along, but it's very, very, very obvious it's forced and the show's writers were unable to skillfully and subtly move the plot there on its own merit. "We need person A and person B to be unreasonably angry with one another right now to make event X happen! We'll insert [unlikely Precipitating Situation Y that came out of nowhere]!"
If they wanted to turn Jon against Dany and have him reclaim the throne, they should have planted the seeds of disillusionment much earlier. It's forced now, and they sprung up a potential schism so close to the end of the show that it has no time to ferment as it properly should. If he turns on her, it'll be fast.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Person :) on Apr 17, 2019 13:22:21 GMT -5
Which brings up an interesting question--if something has flaws, when do you write it off altogether vs. still appreciating some of what it did? I've made the argument before (though perhaps not here) that flaws can actually be part of a reason to enjoy something. I made it in point of AAA games, because at the time I was playing... something... and the game didn't have anything I'd call a 'flaw'. Then again, the game was also so play-tested and safe that it didn't have anything worth remembering either. It felt very 'product', for lack of a better term. If you have a billion dollars to put into sanding every last corner, you definitely lose the sense that it's and individual's vision, because people are flawed. To be human is to be flawed, and thus to have a work that is (relatively) lacking in flaws is to have a work that is lacking in humanity.
Jesus christ why am I so pretentious lately? Whatever.
Liking something (or someone) isn't about simply liking their good bits, it's about accepting the thing/individual as a complete package. I think it's very possible to pick out a few good ideas in some of the worst products or people. Take The Last Jedi: a terrible movie I care nothing about, but the suggestion of a film where two characters abandon the traditional light/dark structure in favour of a new path was genuinely intriguing. Or Xillia's character arcs.
There will always be things that we enjoy more because we see the potential in what they were trying to do versus what the final product actually is. I don't think there's anything wrong with that so-long as people can recognise the divide between the two. I get that Xillia isn't actually a great final product (granted, I don't think it's an awful one either). I've argued many times that Your Name isn't a perfect movie. Murakami probably doesn't write the best sex scenes, and some of his female characters are flatter than they should be. Regardless, I still count Murakami as my favourite author and Your Name my favourite film.
To take another example from the opposite direction, DmC: Devil May Cry has an atrocious story and kiddie-pool level depth compared to the other DMC games. However, there is one feature that it added which I think should be a staple in all action games going forward. See, in a lot of action games you can delay an input the change a combo chain. That is:
X, X, X = Combo 1 X, X, [pause], X = Combo 2
Now, the longer you play, the more accustomed you become to hitting those delays. Eventually it will become second-nature. However, DmC:DMC added a feature where the controller vibrates to indicate the delay. It actually really helped nail down the timing on the first playthrough. Sh*tty game, but that particular feature was awesome. Too bad the negative legacy means nobody will ever look at it.
Which kinda brings me (in a holy sh*t long-winded way) to answering your original question: I think it's merely a matter of balancing how badly the flaws offend you against how much you care about the product in question. DmC:DMC's flippant attitude toward the original franchise turned people off right from the start. Regardless of what good qualities it had, it generated so much bad will on presentation alone (both from the devs pre-release and the game itself) that anybody who cared about the franchise as a whole felt obligated to decry it. By contrast, when I played FF7 about 5 years ago, I could appreciate why it was so popular at the time because I cared enough to make the effort of putting myself in the mind-set of 'someone playing the game in 1997'. If I didn't care enough to adopt that mind-set, all the dated elements would plague the experience.
In the end, I think it really is just a matter of 'wanting' to like something. Yes, people can go into something with a negative attitude and come out enjoying it. But I've also seen people complain about things tailor-made for them, using the most hypocritical arguments imaginable, all because they were just looking for reasons to hate it.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 17, 2019 14:24:39 GMT -5
Hm, there is something to be said for "wanting" to like something, although this usually falls apart for me in the end. I wanted to like FF7; I really did. Everyone and their mother raved about how it was just so revolutionary, so mind-blowing, amazing, and... my mind wasn't blown? But I wanted to like it--I was supposed to like it--so I told myself, in a sense, that certain events were more fun/amusing/etc. I mean, that's what people were talking about, those scenes are what made the game good? It was just my perception that was wrong?
But it felt forced and fake, and eventually I came to the conclusion I was trying way too hard to like the game. I don't look back on the time I spent playing FF7 and think to myself, man, that was fun. I do for other games. That's proof enough it didn't blow my mind. YMMV, and my mileage didn't go far.
I think the answer for me is time. Time clogs up the nostalgia goggles for sure, but it can also clear your head a bit? Oftentimes, when I finish a game/book/show/etc., I have mixed feelings, or I just haven't processed it fully yet. Sometimes time away from things makes me realize, OK, X thing was kinda bad, but I've been thinking about Y element ever since. So, in the end, I end up liking the thing because it made me think, despite obvious flaws. Alternatively, the more I think about such-and-such, the more I realize it had issues or wasn't well-thought out. Or maybe I just don't ever end up thinking of the thing again at all (like FF7). If I don't think about it, I clearly didn't care about it.
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Person :) on Apr 17, 2019 16:35:05 GMT -5
With 'wanting to like something' I meant more in terms of appreciating aspects of it without necessarily approving of the whole. I wasn't really thinking about it in terms of whether or not you actually enjoy something on the whole. You could also consider it 'openness', but I think that's awfully vague and begging the question. I was trying to answer your question very specifically. Surely there are elements of FF7 you can appreciate? Or did you truly just write it off completely?
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 18, 2019 20:18:58 GMT -5
I really wish this stupid forum would retain drafts of posts. Accidentally hit exit on the wrong tab, and goodbye what I wrote.
Anyway, long story short, I read/wrote that hastily, so probably did not interpret that correctly or give a particularly cogent response. Re FF7, I can appreciate that perhaps it was impressive and expansive to someone who had previously only played SNES 2D RPGs. However, that's about it. I don't dislike FF7, but it didn't do anything for me.
A recruiter reached out to me today about a data engineering role for an unnamed video game company. I'm morbidly curious? I just got a raise + am moving into a different role, so I'm not looking to jump right now anymore. But I'm kinda curious to respond and find out who it is? What if it's Firaxis : O
It's probably some boring company like EA, tho.
edit: I decided, you know what, I'm gonna respond, and then I re-read the recruiter's note:
|
|
|
Post by Friendly Person :) on Apr 18, 2019 21:59:01 GMT -5
Anyway, long story short, I read/wrote that hastily, so probably did not interpret that correctly or give a particularly cogent response. Which is funny because, as Derman can attest, my original post ended before 'to answer your question'. I thought everything I typed up until that point felt like things I'd already spoken about, and I began to worry that I was just using something you'd said to go off on a vaguely-related monologue. Thus, I decided to make an effort to specifically answer the question posed.
As for time, I think that's part of it for a lot of people. Another part, at least for me, is repeated viewings. I mentioned how Burning the first time around was difficult to process, but the second time around I loved it. Sometimes there are things you enjoy once, but don't ever want to revisit. Sometimes there are weird instances like with Symphonia: it took 3 attempts to finally beat it, then I beat it two more times, and after the last one I can't stand the thought of playing it again. People change in a lot of ways. We don't in a lot of others. I think approaching something again with a new perspective can shed more light on it and you.
Also, if it was Firaxis, I would hope that my dumb fan idea would at least get consideration (it wouldn't). Usually I don't like making radical, 'they should do THIS crazy, insane thing in the sequel!' things. About 99% of these I see are horrible, and make me glad devs don't pay any attention. That said, here's my dumb-a** idea for Civ 7: Generational Leaders. The leaders they pick often feel constrictive (only 1 for a huge list of important historical figures) and arbitrary (Teddy Roosevelt? Why?), so why not have a string of leaders that replace each other as you progress through the eras? When the time comes to pick a new leader, you could, say, pick a perk, which would not only give a ton of diversity to Civs, but would allow for variation even among people playing the same Civ.
Yeah, yeah: balancing, lots of work... I get it's a pipe-dream. It's just my crazy fan thought though.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 19, 2019 22:24:46 GMT -5
I mean, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how it works from a balancing perspective... but I'm not sure how they get balancing right at all, period. It's a lot easier to point out when something feels unbalanced than to actually design a balanced system. I guess that's why if you read the patch notes, you'll see half of the bullets are adjustments to buffs/debuffs/bonuses/etc and not actually bonafide bug fixes.
Game design theory is an interesting topic. For all the games out there made--board game, video game, etc.--most will be mediocre, a few will be terrible, and a few will be amazing. (A common distribution.) It's very easy to identify what things you like about your favorite games and even abstract out a general trend, but it's another thing altogether to apply said trends in practice. I guess maybe because there's some myopia involved in creating a game/movie/TV shows/book/media in general? You might know best practices, but it's very hard to implement when you're in the trenches and lack a bird's eye view. Moreover, it's also hard to put the "best practices" building blocks together into something cogent. You could get the individual pieces right in isolation, but they don't gel when thrown together.
More broadly, outside of game design and into media in general, I think creators' myopia can really get in the way of storytelling in particular. Similar to a "fun game", everyone can identify the elements of books or movies they enjoyed. But creators of mediocre or problematic works might not even realize they fail to incorporate said elements effectively? Take character development, for instance--an author's got an entire unwritten backstory in their head that the reader doesn't have access to. From the reader's perspective, a character might feel hollow or his actions hard to follow. It's quite difficult for the creator to recognize gaps in his own work from another's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 20, 2019 9:40:23 GMT -5
The benefit of rainy, humid, gross days: I can stay inside all day and work on my computer without feeling like a pasty basement dweller. perfectly executable plan. heh heh heh heh
|
|