Poll of the Day > Spider-Geek: Homecoming

(+) Yeah! (+)

Raganork10 posted...

I'm ~85 hours in and still haven't beaten it. Unlike nearly everyone else playing, I'm not gonna kiss the game's ass. It's far too long for its own good (like the previous Personas), and the characters are more miss than hit. It's mostly my fault; I knew what I was getting into and bought the game anyway. I love the combat and the dungeons, but the social aspects drop the game down a number of pegs in my book. The writing isn't consistently good, too many characters are one-dimensional, and I'm not a weeaboo, so I couldn't give a shit about the poorly-developed romantic relationships you can have.

That said, the gameplay is exceptional, but if anything, my experience has only made me appreciate the actual SMT games even more. In fact, Persona 5 makes me want to give Nocturne another shot. Nocturne was awesome, but it kicked my ass all those years ago when I played it, so I stopped. Rather play that than any Persona, honestly. Shit, I even wanna replay Digital Devil Saga, which has my favorite video game narrative.

Had the pacing been better, like if you didn't have 6 hours of tedious daily life to "role play" between every dungeon, and if I wasn't under a time constraint that makes me feel forced to do dungeons in one go to maximize my use of in-game allotted time, I would've enjoyed the game so much more.

Your main problem is you haven't beaten it.
It won't redeem the game pacing for you (since you already played it) but the last 10 or so hours of the game REALLY kick ass and it makes the rest of the game make sense.

I agree the pacing is rough but there's more than enough time to do everything you want to do and the Confidants (most of them) are really well written.

That's all I'll say for now. I don't want to spoil anything.
Let me know if your opinion changes when you beat it.

How do you know you married the right person?

When they look at you and say, "I kind of want a Hunga Munga or a S Guard Rapier for my birthday."

I smiled and immediately started pricing out the two blades.

I love my wife.
---

Raganork10 posted...

Thing is, if you have multiple endings in a game, they had all better be entertaining or satisfying in some way. With SMT4, chaos and lawful both sucked, leaving you with only neutral left, which was decent, but basically requires a guide to obtain.

That was my one problem with Dishonored. The difference between High Chaos and Low Chaos endings is so severe - and so blatantly a "good ending"/"bad ending" dichotomy - that it makes it almost pointless to play that game as anything other than pure stealth/non-lethal. The game goes out of its way to give you multiple solutions to every scenario both in gameplay and narrative, and then shits on you if you choose anything but the one specific path they want you to take.

I like the idea that Dishonored 2 changes this a bit by making certain people more "good" or "bad" than others (and punishing you less for killing the bad people while punishing you more for killing the relatively innocent), and I've heard that the endings are a bit less hamfisted, but I still haven't gotten around to it to know for sure. But I LIKE the idea that you can hack-and-slash your way through an army that is blatantly trying to kill you after betraying you/the Empress and not get a moralizing slap-on-the-wrist because you killed too many people, boo-hoo.


---

Seeing Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 on Monday. Too much stuff to do this weekend.

Might post a review that afternoon.

Keep it spoiler free until then, or block it out as usual.
---

I'll probably go see it in about a week.

The timing will be perfect because the crowds should let up a little (for however sequel crowds might do), and the 15th and 16th is when the servers will be down in FFXIV as everything is being transferred to newer, better data centers (Yay, the American servers will no longer be on potatoes). The real question is whether or not I want to head out while it's warmer outside, but people will be at work or school, or if I want to go when it's cooler but I know getting a decent seat will be less likely.



The order I placed for FFX/X-2 HD was taking a while just to ship out, so I wrote Amazon about it just out of curiosity since there was no notice about a shortage of stock or about the item usually shipping after so many days. I got a response shortly afterward, but after the shipping facilities had closed for the day, and they bumped it up to one day shipping (at no extra fee to me) and sent a message along to the facility to get the order moving. Neat.
---

It's good to know that even with modern slave day practice Amazon still has a heart.
---

The Wave Master posted...

It's good to know that even with modern slave day practice Amazon still has a heart.

Supposedly Amazon is still a better employer than most retail chains.
---

So far Episode 2 of American Gods has been even better than the first.

I'm amazed at how close it has stayed to the source material so far when compared to something like Lucifer.

They even kept my favorite quote in the book in, nearly word for word (Wednesday's opinion of northern mid-western women).
---

knivesX2004 posted...

Your main problem is you haven't beaten it.
It won't redeem the game pacing for you (since you already played it) but the last 10 or so hours of the game REALLY kick ass and it makes the rest of the game make sense.

I'm currently a bit through palace 7 and I have to say this is the worse palace in the game. Story wise? Nothing at all surprising yet. I'll wait until I've completed the game before I judge it though.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Your main problem is you haven't beaten it.
It won't redeem the game pacing for you (since you already played it) but the last 10 or so hours of the game REALLY kick ass and it makes the rest of the game make sense.

I'm currently a bit through palace 7 and I have to say this is the worse palace in the game. Story wise? Nothing at all surprising yet. I'll wait until I've completed the game before I judge it though.

That argument sort of reminds me of this:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/04/14

I'm sorry, but even if the last 10% of a story is brilliant and amazing, if the 90% preceding it is a painful slog, it is NOT a good experience. Nor should anyone feel "obligated" to stick it out to the end, or feel bad for not being able to get through the dull parts. If something is so poorly structured that large chunks of it are unbearable torment you have to suffer through to experience the actual worthwhile parts, it's a piss-poor game/book/show/etc.

It's the flip-side of the argument people like to use about how "THE ENDING DOESN'T MATTER" or "IT'S THE JOURNEY THAT MATTERS, NOT THE DESTINATION!" (especially people trying to defend Mass Effect 3). No, I'm sorry, but the ending DOES matter - a strong ending is a keystone holding up the arch of quality storytelling, while a terrible ending is like sticking a lump of warm buttery shit into the top of the arch and then acting surprised when the whole thing falls down.

Beginning, middle, and end all matter, and any one of the being weak can easily ruin the other two (and the overall whole). But the reverse isn't really true - one of them being utterly brilliant really can't compensate for the other two being extremely weak. A good story has to succeed in countless different ways. A bad story only has to fail in one.

That being said, a strong, fun experience can still be had if a game has "grindy" parts (or a book has filler, etc), and some unevenness can balance out, but if part of the experience feels like a painful slog, that's absolutely dragging the whole thing down.

Not that I have any opinions about Persona 5 specifically - it is very, very clearly a game which was never made for ME, anyone like me, and the odds of it ever being anything I was ever going to like were pretty much doomed from the beginning. So I've avoided it online (though what I have heard/seen just sort of reinforces the initial assumption). But I always have a bit of a pet-peeve when someone is basically saying "Well, 3/4ths of this thing is shit, but you should force yourself to try it anyway because the other 1/4th is pretty good!" There is FAR too much quality media in our world (more than any single human could ever hope to experience even in a lifetime three times as long) to force yourself to suffer for a moment of brilliance when you could just as easily watch/read/play something that is more like 90%+ great.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I like the idea that Dishonored 2 changes this a bit by making certain people more "good" or "bad" than others (and punishing you less for killing the bad people while punishing you more for killing the relatively innocent), and I've heard that the endings are a bit less hamfisted, but I still haven't gotten around to it to know for sure. But I LIKE the idea that you can hack-and-slash your way through an army that is blatantly trying to kill you after betraying you/the Empress and not get a moralizing slap-on-the-wrist because you killed too many people, boo-hoo.

Huh. That concept does sound cool/more realistic. Still, I'm of the opinion that games need to abandon this morality-ending bullshit altogether, because not a single game has done it correctly. ME and the Paragon/Vanguard stuff came the closest, but ME3 made it all for not anyways.

There are just too many times where it's perfectly OK to act like a dick or do something "amoral" if the moment calls for it, and games that specifically punish you for not essentially fighting in self-defense deserve a special place in hell. Any game that has a moral ending system, I go into not giving a fuck about it, and just play as if it didn't exist.


Saw GotG 2. From a guy who didn't understand why everyone was creaming their pants over the first one, this one did little better to make me care. Not terrible film making or anything, just thought it was meh overall. Good performances out of most, liked Kurt Russel and the music, but overall still not on board with this franchise. Took my parents (because I wanted to show them this new theater in town that serves food and beer while you watch the film), and they like the MCU enough, and neither cared for it, either.
---

Incidentally, that's sort of the same logic that applies when it comes to my ingrained dislike for Dark Souls and other "frustration gaming" titles. When the selling point of your game is "Fail 99 times and be absolutely frustrated, enraged, and otherwise miserable - so that the sheer relief and sense of victory you feel when you finally win on the 100th try is a great rush," I have zero interest in playing. We live in a world where I can borrow dozens of books a month from my local library, watch hundreds of thousands of hours with of movies and TV streaming at a moment's notice, and play thousands of video games from across multiple console generations and PC (not to mention watch countless YouTube videos or read Internet web sites). Then there's the time burned off by being an adult who has to do adult things, maintain social relationships, occasionally snuggle with a significant other who wants to read/watch/play/etc something else, and so on, which cuts into that precious entertainment time even more.

When I was a kid with no responsibilities, nowhere to be, and nothing else to do, playing Ninja Gaiden or TMNT over and over and over and over again until I memorized patterns and developed precise fast-twitch reflexes to beat frustrating bosses was "fun" - and I still sort of take a bit of pride in beating games like X-Men, Silver Surfer (which a friend of mine used to swear no one on Earth had ever beaten until I rubbed his nose in it), or even the quintessential "hard" game from the SNES, 7th Saga (which I never thought was all THAT hard, buncha whiney crybabies!). But I don't want to DO any of that anymore. Especially when I already have a dozen or so games I've bought and haven't even opened yet, along with dozens of DVDs I bought and never got around to watching, stuff I HAVE watched before but really like and want to see again, occasionally going to the movies with family or friends, playing the occasional board game or session of Magic, etc etc etc.

I don't have time for frustration. Now I need my entertainment like a euphoric jolt of heroin shot directly into my brain at all times, because if you bore me for an hour straight, I'm probably never coming back.

That outlook is probably also a large part of what ultimately led me to stop watching Doctor Who (after 30+ fucking years of being obsessed with it) - I can't suffer through multiple seasons of multiple terrible episodes in the hopes that things eventually get better or out of nostalgic obligation for past services rendered. My time is way too precious to waste on crap.

I've been the battered housewife to entertainment for far too long. Now I'm Stella and I've got my groove back.


---

Oh, I just want to share something about my DnD game, because I have my own weird, weird sense of fun in my games.

So one of the PCs died from a horrible, horrible flesh eating parasite in an exiled Devil's playground, and then because of the whole "devil" thing, had to join up with the exiled devils. Then the next couple of rooms later, the same PC took over the body of a tiefling from another adventuring party and rejoined up the group.

They leave the area, and the PC wants to figure out how the hell things are working now (especially with bits of soul and personality left inside). So I decide to make the legal system binding to the body of the person, and not the soul, so that PC basically swapped houses with his original house and the tiefling's house and had some fun with that.

I have legitimately argued that Bureaucracy should be a skill in most game systems, because I had no idea what sort of rolls you would make for that in 5e and just sorta winged it.
#TeamBureaucracy4RPGs

Man, I need to run some sort of Delta Green game, because it does have Bureaucracy as a skill.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Still, I'm of the opinion that games need to abandon this morality-ending bullshit altogether, because not a single game has done it correctly. ME and the Paragon/Vanguard stuff came the closest, but ME3 made it all for not anyways.

The problem with BioWare was that every morality system they ever had is basically echoing Knights of the Old Republic.

And the problem there is, KotOR was basically coming from two separate places - it was already starting off broken because it was rooted in Lucas' childishly simplistic view of how morality works when the Force is involved (which is one of the weaker parts of the GOOD movies, let alone the terrible ones), and on a technical level, KotOR was mimicking how Baldur's Gate handled morality (ie, with a very simplified version of D&D's alignment system, where everyone was basically on a scale from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil - where 1 was EEEVIL and 20 was Saint, and you'd gain or lose a point or two for everything good or bad you did). The end result was simplistic as fuck, and often a bit awkward if you didn't want to be a literal saint or a sadistic serial killer. And since they tied the high-level powers into alignment, it meant that you were effectively being punished for trying to be neutral, or even just deviating too much from the "correct" path as determined by your Force alignment.

Jade Empire was pretty much the exact same system, only with different names and the attempt to make it SEEM different making the Closed Fist logic even more broken (a problem Mass Effect inherited, because they NEVER really knew how to handle Renegade right - it basically became "anything that doesn't qualify as Paragon", with Paragon being "goody two-shoes"). And Mass Effect started out mostly as just Jade Empire morality with a paint job.

Ironically, the Dragon Age games are the only major BioWare titles that deviated from the KotOR model when it came to "morality" - which it did by copying everything from KotOR2 instead. They dropped the idea of "alignment" per se in favor of "influence" with your companions, which generally just had the effect of making most of your choices seem a bit weaker and encouraging people to game the influence system.

Dragon Age 2 probably got closest to what I tend to want out of an "alignment" system in games - a tangible effect from your dialogue choices (choose mostly Sarcastic responses and Hawke's ambient dialogue will switch to Sarcastic, some other characters may talk about you differently, you may get special reaction options not normally available - choose mostly Diplomatic or Harsh options and you'll go that way instead), but one NOT tied to either powers or arbitrary Persuade option bullshit, meaning you can pretty much pick whichever options you want, whenever you want, and aren't locked in to certain choices for game reasons. Plus there's always a bit of free-flow - my original Hawke started the game somewhat diplomatic, turned sarcastic, and then spent a lot of the late game bitter and terse, all motivated by events in-game.

(The fact that they kind of dropped that in DA:I is one of the many reasons so many characters in that game felt bland as shit, and there was so much less motivation to see "different" Inquisitors).

My problem is I see morality (or "choice" mechanics) the same way I see alignment in D&D (no matter how much Shadow hates it). It doesn't matter if loads of games get it wrong, the CONCEPT itself DOES have storytelling possibilities, and I'm usually willing to suffer through mediocre or merely "good" ones in the in the hopes that someday we'll get an actual great one.

Because otherwise, you've got a game like Fallout 4, where you have tons of dialogue choices, but it feels like literally nothing you say ever matters.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

My problem is I see morality (or "choice" mechanics) the same way I see alignment in D&D (no matter how much Shadow hates it). It doesn't matter if loads of games get it wrong, the CONCEPT itself DOES have storytelling possibilities, and I'm usually willing to suffer through mediocre or merely "good" ones in the in the hopes that someday we'll get an actual great one.

"That wrist may be horrifically infected, but those are good fingers, so let's keep that going"

Actually, Alpha Protocol may have done the exact same thing only slightly BETTER than Dragon Age 2 - but there are like 12 people on Earth who have played and still remember Alpha Protocol, so it doesn't really matter.

Mechanically, you'd get a VERY minor stat boost ability based on what dialogue options you picked in the tutorial stage (basically "establishing" yourself as either a cool professional agent, a snarky iconoclast, or a brutal thug), while the sum of your choices could affect relationships (ie, you want to be professional or a bit humorous with the sweet girl, aggressive to the badass nympho chick, cool professional to your boss or certain other people you want to win over, or you can literally provoke characters into fights using sarcastic responses that annoy them), alter story options, and otherwise help flavor how the game presents your character based on your general tone of responses.

But with DA2 and AP, it was never just a "scale" where one choice counteracted others, but a more complex balance between different values, where the preponderance of your choices (both recently and over time as a whole) shape how the game presents you. You could start DA2 really pissed off but become more light-hearted, only to get pissed off again - and at no point do you feel like you're invalidating your previous choices.

Basically, my favorite RPGs are ones where I DON'T feel compelled to go in going "Welp, I guess this is going to be my Paragon run" as much as I'm encouraged to develop a feel for my character's personality, and then shape their responses accordingly (DA's great for this, but New Vegas may be the game that did it the best for me - ironic because Fallout 3 & 4 may be the games where I felt most hamstrung and boxed in in that respect). I played seven different Couriers and not a single one of them felt the same to me. Each was a very distinct person. Most of my Hawkes had their own eccentricities and attitudes as well, and it's part of why I played that game almost a dozen times (and why I had trouble finishing DA:I more than once).


---

shadowsword87 posted...

"That wrist may be horrifically infected, but those are good fingers, so let's keep that going"

But see, that's flawed, because in that analogy, the problem is inherent in the thing being discussed, not in the misuse of the thing being discussed.

But if we're throwing out awkward analogies, I'd say it's more like "You broke three fingers, so we cut all of your fingers off."

Or I could be really, really old and tell you to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater, then make a 23 Skiddoo reference.



shadowsword87 posted...

Man, I need to run some sort of Delta Green game, because it does have Bureaucracy as a skill.

The oWoD does as well, technically.

It usually crops up as a secondary skill (which means it's only in the Players' Guides, not the core rulebooks), but it definitely shows up as a useful skill in both Vampire and Mage. In Technocracy-focused games, it's almost mandatory.

L5R sort of has it as well, but less in a modern sense of bureaucracy, and more in the original literal Asian version of the term. It tends to be a must-have for Courtier-type characters.



shadowsword87 posted...

I have legitimately argued that Bureaucracy should be a skill in most game systems, because I had no idea what sort of rolls you would make for that in 5e and just sorta winged it.
#TeamBureaucracy4RPGs

Would depend on the context, I'd say.

Like, what do you want to DO with the bureaucracy in question? Talk your way through red tape and get to an important official bypassing the middlemen? That's a Persuasion. Want to try and figure out which Ministry in a bloated government would have jurisdiction over a specific case? That might be a straight Intelligence check, some form of specialty legal skill, possibly History or a culture-based lore check (maybe even Religion for dealing with a Church bureaucracy or Arcana for a Wizard's Order), or even Investigation (if the characters are trying to research their way to the answer). Want to try and bribe an official without offending them? That might be Persuasion, Deception, or even Intimidation depending on how you make the offer, or potentially even Performance or Sleight-of-Hand if you're turning the process into elaborately staged gestures and movements.

The simplest way to handle all of those is just straight ability checks (so, the above would be Charisma, Intelligence, and either Intelligence or Wisdom), defaulting to special secondary skills if a player has them (so, a player with a homebrew "Etiquette" skill is rolling that instead of Knowledge or Charisma when dealing with court politics). The more complicated way is allowing players to specialize into setting-specific secondary skills (like "Law" or "Etiquette") that allow them to handle more specific situations to greater degree of success as long as it fits their backstory (so the Paladin who also used to be a local Magistrate might have a "Law" skill that defaults higher than his other, more general skills, but which also is only applicable when dealing with remembering and quoting legal statutes or looking for loopholes).

oWoD mostly handled the problem by making every roll a combination of ability and skill, having almost 40 base skills, and then allowing for hundreds of more specific secondary skills that you could buy at half-cost (so a bureaucracy roll would be Int+Bureau).

Bureaucracy isn't a primary skill in 5e D&D because most players will never use it. They're usually the sort of people who solve bureaucratic problems by punching their way through, not going with the overly elaborate and usually redundantly unnecessary flow.


---

Persona 5 suffers from the same problem as the last two Personas: it's too long. I'm someone who replays shmups and arcade games hundreds of times; you don't need a lengthy game to impress me. And with Persona 5, you could cut out the 30 hours of social link drama, the mementos grind, and palaces 5 and 6, and have a tight 50 hour experience that I would've enjoyed much more. Even good gameplay gets stale when I'm doing the same thing over and over, with no need to change my strategy, listening to the same battle tune for literally the 500th time. It doesn't stay fresh or interesting long enough to sustain such a long game, and the - essentially - visual novel half of the game plays out so slooooooowly that it brings down the rest of the game.

I'm 92 hours in, at (presumably - HOPEFULLY) the final dungeon, and I just want this to end so I can move on. Any interesting developments that occur at this point don't even matter to me; this was stuff that could've been happening 60 hours ago, instead of talking with Ann about how her rival model is jealous of her. Or how much Hifumi loves Shogi (Shogo? I can't remember what it's called. Japanese Chess). I'm playing purely because of how much time I invested; not because I'm excited to see how it ends. And honestly, short of everyone turning into Godzilla and brawling to the death, I don't see myself being wowed by any upcoming twists.

As for 7th Saga, that game was bullshit. How are you supposed to know that recruiting a partner, or grinding too much could actually fuck you over and make the game harder? And Silver Surfer? I love shmups, but I despise ones that require you to squeeze through tight areas of the environment. I want to dodge enemies and projectiles; not walls. Same reason why I never got into Gradius or R-Type, and why I hate Sine Mora.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The oWoD does as well, technically.

It usually crops up as a secondary skill (which means it's only in the Players' Guides, not the core rulebooks), but it definitely shows up as a useful skill in both Vampire and Mage. In Technocracy-focused games, it's almost mandatory.

OMG, welp next time I'm forced to play oWoD I'm going to try and convince the GM to let me be a boring bureaucrat who's a vampire.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Bureaucracy isn't a primary skill in 5e D&D because most players will never use it. They're usually the sort of people who solve bureaucratic problems by punching their way through, not going with the overly elaborate and usually redundantly unnecessary flow.

I may just have a love for weird things, and having a character who's really f***ing into something useless and hamfisting it in every situation is honestly pretty fun.
Bureaucracy and Geology characters for me all day every day.

Oh, and the other way you could handle that would be to allow players to buy (at reduced cost) skill specialties that act as modifiers to existing skill rolls (again, something that oWoD does).

For example, say you have a party of three characters, each with the same Intelligence and History modifiers. But one of them has specialty "Local History +2", one has "Ancient History +2", and another has "Political History +2".

The first one may not know as much about when the Battle of Hastings (or nearest fantasy equivalent) was fought, but they'll have a better chance remembering where the women who was hanged as a witch used to live in his old village, and which tree they hung her from. He's also more likely to remember that story he heard someone telling years ago about the mysterious cave a few miles out of town... Meanwhile, the second guy is going to have an edge when you're trying to find the field where an ancient king dropped his crown in a river, or remember the name of the Old Kingdoms swallowed up by the Empire when it was originally forming. And the third guy is likely to remember which Senators have voted in ways that might make them sympathetic to your cause, which nations the Empire is currently treatied to, and which ones you might want to avoid traveling to (or at least not letting people know where you're from).

Now you've basically differentiated three otherwise "identical" characters into more unique archetypes. The first is clearly an experienced local or Ranger-type (or the average Hobbit), while the second guy is probably a dusty old historian, while the third is either a budding politician or a noble forced to play the game or lose prestige. And each player has a greater chance of being the "hero" when something comes up in their specialty field that the party needs to know, thus keeping them involved (and preventing every situation from automatically becoming "The Charisma/Persuasion guy does all the talking, the Int/History guy handles all the lore, the Barbarian hits things").


---

I agree that there are too many solid entertainment options out there in the world to sit there and grind a game in frustration just to get that one moment of joy from 40 plus hours of gameplay.

It is the reason I don't like Dark Souls or Bloodbourne. Plus I think the game play is too slow and stagnant. Especially after playing a game like Devil May Cry or Bayonetta.

It was fine when I was 10 to 16 and I had hours to play just one game endlessly, or because I only got a new game for my birthday or Christmas. So, it was okay when I had copious amounts of time to grind a game as a kid, but I'm closing in on 40, and I just don't ha e the time.

I guess this goes back to why I'm having trouble finishing games. I'm not 15 any more and I am being pulled in a million directions. I don't have time to wait for a game to get good. It needs to be good from the beginning or it's just going to collect dust.
---

The Wave Master posted...

It is the reason I don't like Dark Souls or Bloodbourne. Plus I think the game play is too slow and stagnant. Especially after playing a game like Devil May Cry or Bayonetta.

It's the reason I don't hardcore grind in any MMO. I might do content, but I've no interest in sitting there for many, many hours, seemingly running at a reinforced, barbed wall all for the sake of finally beating the most extreme/savage/hardcore version of a piece of content there is.

It's also why I typically prefer RPGs where grinding is optional and/or minimal if I want to progress to the end. Ironic, seeing as how I still play FFXIV, but with all the tricks I've picked up in that game leveling is more of a nuisance than a blatant time sink, and even then it runs parallel with me enjoying whichever class/job there is . . . except Machinist and Palad--zzzZZZzzz...

The Wave Master posted...

I guess this goes back to why I'm having trouble finishing games. I'm not 15 any more and I am being pulled in a million directions. I don't have time to wait for a game to get good. It needs to be good from the beginning or it's just going to collect dust.

While it may be argued that "good" is subjective, I agree that a sign of a good game OR show (or even book) is if it pulls me in within the first 30-45 minutes as something that is interesting and I might enjoy.

One example of something fucking terrible that I highly doubt I'll ever finish is "Ni No Kuni." I took so many rage-inducing issues with the first 30 minutes, and the story was equal parts generic, cliche, and schlock. On the other side of the spectrum, there's "Resident Evil 7," which grabbed my attention with its storytelling and simple-but-effective gameplay; care to guess how much I enjoyed that game?

Also, despite the cutscenes (with no skip) and the blitzball forced on you about a quarter of the way into the main story, I still find FFX appealing, because that game got a lot right. A lot wrong, too, but enough right to guarantee I'd play more than the first couple quests/mission/levels.

So if I'm going to put in the time I do have in any medium of entertainment or art, I'm going to hold some standards so I'm not wasting my time on something I know will suck - like Final Fantasy XII (as the "Zodiac Age" HD version is coming soon).

Also, I couldn't finish the newest iteration of Pokemon, because the only thing I could sense from it is the need to be a blind completionist. I didn't feel as drawn to it like I did Gen 3 or 6; basically I quit it like I did Gen 4. <_<
---

Pokemon lost its sense of "adventure" a long time ago.
---

Final Fantasy XII was great. I'm gonna pull a hipster here and say I'm glad y'all hate it. Get to bask in the greatness by my lonesome. And Zodiac Age is making substantial changes to the gameplay systems to make the game feel fresh all over again. Glorious. Had Matsuno been able to finish the entire game, I could safely say with no exaggeration that it would've been the best Final Fantasy. Easily. By a fucking landslide and a half.

Still, I'll gladly drag myself through the slog of the introductory hours to get to the succulent gooey center of the game. Finally, I'll be able to enjoy an mmo again without having to put up with incompetent party members, and artificial constants set up to encourage daily play and constant subscription.

Raganork10 posted...

Had Matsuno been able to finish the entire game

There would have been no Vaan or Penelo, and quite possibly a number of other things would also have been changed for the better, resulting in you hating the game. Who knows? Maybe Ashe would have been something other than a self-centered who wanted her throne back during the majority of the game.

Raganork10 posted...

Still, I'll gladly drag myself through the slog of the introductory hours

Of which there were way, way too many.
---

Raganork10 posted...

Finally, I'll be able to enjoy an mmo again without having to put up with incompetent party members, and artificial constants set up to encourage daily play and constant subscription.

and a number of bosses where the entire strategy is "set up gambits, put the controller down, and leave the room for 4 to 6 hours"...
---

People love to mention the two bosses that come to mind that involve letting your team play on autopilot (Hell Wyrm and Yiazmat - both optional end game bosses at that) and exaggerate their point to say "a number of bosses" or sometimes even "most bosses." FF12 is actually one of the more difficult FFs, and there's a fair bit of micromanagement that goes on during combat - more so than any other FF that I can't think of. People fail to remember that you need to first reach the point where you become an unstoppable badass... before being that unstoppable badass.

Also, there's no be-all-end-all gambit arrangement you can stick with for the entirety of the game, meaning at the very least you're putting some thought into deciding which gambits would be most beneficial in each area. Especially with vanilla FF12, where you need to purchase/find gambits - which unlock gradually over the course of the game - in addition to unlocking licenses for abilities and gambit slots. Part of the reason why the first half of the game is actually quite challenging. And Zodiac Age limits your class choices to force you to use all your party members equally; no more jack of all trades invincible super hero squad anymore.

As for Matsuno's involvement, he wanted Basch to be the MC - no problem with that. You can already tell this was the case if you played the game. That would've been a huge boost to the narrative right there. There's also the fact that I love every game the guy has made, with special mention of Tactics Ogre, FF Tactics, and Vagrant Story. He has a knack for asking players to put some actual thought into confronting enemies, and I adore that philosophy. With him at the helm for 100% of the game's development, the world might have stopped in pure shock at sight of the final product. Yeah, I'm fanboying it up hard here, but it's hard not to do so when two of his games are your favorite games ever.

Entity13 posted...

Also, I couldn't finish the newest iteration of Pokemon, because the only thing I could sense from it is the need to be a blind completionist. I didn't feel as drawn to it like I did Gen 3 or 6; basically I quit it like I did Gen 4. <_<

idk, the one thing I didn't like was the absurdly long cutscenes/cinematics whatever, which eats up so much of the early going and then a lot towards the end. Story and character-wise, it was actually pretty fun with some of the ending captains and Kahunas being my fave "Oh, I don't actually have a trial, so I'll just give you my Z-Crystal. Have a nice day!" Plus Acerola and Nanu were great.

However, I did feel cheated by how fucking short most of the trials were. Even a lot of the gyms in Gen1 & 2 had more to them. And the world was more "open" in many regards but there was always temporary obstacles to keep you from progressing in that direction.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Pokemon lost its sense of "adventure" a long time ago.

The most recent one had more of an adventurous feel since it was so different compared to earlier entries. Particularly because you didn't necessarily know what to expect with the trials. Granted, it also incorporates essentially the same story structure as in earlier games (ie, evil organization introduced early, occasionally encounter throughout the game while going on your quest, and then that organization prompts a story-encounter with a legendary Pokemon after which the villain arc wraps up before you can go confront the elite 4
---

That's good to hear. The game felt so... wooden in the demo.
---

Nier: Automata is a game I want to own when the price drops to 20 dollars. Oh, I'm not saying anything g bad about the game at all, but rather how poor I am right now because of my wedding. (I still have not picked up Zelda or Persona 5.)

But as poor as I am I'm not going to pirate a game. Actually I have never pirated a game in my life. Why? Because it's stealing. Flat out stealing. There are no excuses you can make to justify stealing a game. Downloading it illegally isn't any different than walking into a Gamestop or Best Buy and walking out with said game.

So when this modder decided to not allow pirates to enjoy his mod I'm not upset at all. Instead I applaud and support his decision.

http://kotaku.com/popular-nier-automata-pc-mod-includes-a-piracy-check-1795090696

How do all of you feel?
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

That's good to hear. The game felt so... wooden in the demo.

The demo was trash, but the demos for Pokemon game usually are trash. Even the first trial was nothing like what was shown in the demo.

The Wave Master posted...

But as poor as I am I'm not going to pirate a game. Actually I have never pirated a game in my life. Why? Because it's stealing. Flat out stealing. There are no excuses you can make to justify stealing a game. Downloading it illegally isn't any different than walking into a Gamestop or Best Buy and walking out with said game.

Actually it's very different. Piracy is a form of theft, but it's nowhere near comparable to physical theft and rhetoric like that is why people don't take piracy seriously.
---

Zeus posted...

Actually it's very different. Piracy is a form of theft, but it's nowhere near comparable to physical theft and rhetoric like that is why people don't take piracy seriously.

exactly. if i steal your bicycle, i have deprived you of the use of property you own. who have i deprived of the use of a file that i have copied?
---

Nier Automata is so good, and is made by such a humble man that strives to make unique, thought-provoking experiences, that I felt the $60 I paid for it was worth every cent, and I will rarely say that. Not only is it the best game I've played in years, but it's something that I'm positive will stick in my mind forever, much like the first game. Anyone that pirates it should feel ashamed. Anything else released this year? I don't care; do what you'd like.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

exactly. if i steal your bicycle, i have deprived you of the use of property you own. who have i deprived of the use of a file that i have copied?

Well, money, for one, and to play devil's advocate. And besides, for this analogy to work, you wouldn't be stealing my bicycle, you'd be stealing the bicycle from the manufacturer/retailer. In which case, what you stole is the same in the end as something digital money/profit. The actual physical parts of the bicycle don't matter, since it's only purpose is to make money for the creator.

Not that I give a shit if you pirate games, but people really need to stop using bad analogies to justify it.
---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

exactly. if i steal your bicycle, i have deprived you of the use of property you own. who have i deprived of the use of a file that i have copied?

Well, money, for one, and to play devil's advocate. And besides, for this analogy to work, you wouldn't be stealing my bicycle, you'd be stealing the bicycle from the manufacturer/retailer. In which case, what you stole is the same in the end as something digital money/profit. The actual physical parts of the bicycle don't matter, since it's only purpose is to make money for the creator.

Not that I give a shit if you pirate games, but people really need to stop using bad analogies to justify it.

Well then you open the rabbit hole as to where the harm comes from in regards to theft entirely and I'm not sure in this case if you really want to come down on the side of defending capitalism, Sage ;)
---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

exactly. if i steal your bicycle, i have deprived you of the use of property you own. who have i deprived of the use of a file that i have copied?

Well, money, for one, and to play devil's advocate. And besides, for this analogy to work, you wouldn't be stealing my bicycle, you'd be stealing the bicycle from the manufacturer/retailer. In which case, what you stole is the same in the end as something digital money/profit. The actual physical parts of the bicycle don't matter, since it's only purpose is to make money for the creator.

Not that I give a shit if you pirate games, but people really need to stop using bad analogies to justify it.

That's kind of a weak analogy because it *still* references the deprivation of physical property, something which has a specific unit cost to the company where actual loss is incurred by the theft. There's no actual harm to the concerned parties, which makes it a terrible analogy.

In general, even the concept that the loss of a potential sale doesn't really hold up because a person who pirates may not have legitimately purchased in the absence of piracy. This is why the "lost profits" reports are largely bogus and based on really awful speculation.

Which, again, doesn't justify piracy, but just puts it in better perspective. I've photocopied pages from books for reference materials, which is arguably a kind of piracy. However, when I've instead taken notes from those same pages, I'm also effectively taking material without having paid for it. In some senses, that could be considered piracy as well. And, when I was in school, I would draw images of characters on my folders rather than buy licensed merchandise with characters on it which, again, in effect could constitute piracy since it's a copyright infringement (or, at the very least, a trademark infringement). In not one of those circumstances was any actual damage incurred by the owner of the IP.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

exactly. if i steal your bicycle, i have deprived you of the use of property you own. who have i deprived of the use of a file that i have copied?

You've deprived the creator of that file's value in income which they would otherwise have gained by sale of said file. In turn, you are theoretically limiting their ability to create new works in the future due to financial concerns, and are ultimately harming the very thing you profess to like (or, at least, like enough to want to experience it in the first place). This is doubly true in cases where the creator isn't necessarily a massive conglomerate that can soak minor losses, but even there you're potentially putting the jobs of hundreds of people at risk if cumulative loss of sales becomes too impactful.

Sierra used to mention at least one case where, in the days before DRMs were really a big thing, one of their major titles sold more copies of a strategy guide than they'd actually sold copies of the game itself. Statistics like that were a large part of why PC gaming companies back then started putting secret codes into the manual or "feelies" that came with the game. When it became obvious that it wasn't enough (pirates would just make code lists for people to use that would come with the pirated copy), DRM grew more and more invasive, complex, and potentially damaging to the consumer.

It's also part of why developers are keen on shoe-horning "always on" and "server-side processing" to new games - because both of those things make it easier to prevent people from using illegally obtained copies of games (or at least make it harder for them to do so), with the added bonus of cutting the legs off the used game industry.



Zeus posted...

In general, even the concept that the loss of a potential sale doesn't really hold up because a person who pirates may not have legitimately purchased in the absence of piracy.

Yeah, but then you're getting into the entitled asshole argument. Way too many people today seem to have the belief that the world should be obligated to provide them with every experience they want without ever having to pay for it, and thus moralize their piracy into a social obligation. When realistically, if you're not going to legitimately purchase a creative work, you also have zero right to experience it at all. Your civil rights don't include life, liberty, and the pursuit of watching Game of Thrones without paying HBO.

If you don't want to pay for something, you also don't get to experience it. Simple.

I'll be perfectly honest, I'm one of the first people who will resort to piracy and intellectual property theft left and right if it's convenient (I've read lots of books and comics, watched plenty of shows and movies, and listened to a fair amount of music I never paid for), but I'm at least self-aware enough to admit that it's absolutely morally wrong, and I have no problem with it being legally wrong, either.

We can get into even more granular aspects of the debate (such as whether or not things like copyright or intellectual property rights should exist at all), but like it or not, in the world as it currently exists piracy is absolutely "wrong".


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You've deprived the creator of that file's value in income which they would otherwise have gained by sale of said file.

Except you actually haven't, because one act of piracy does not correlate to one lost sale. Likewise, on some levels that's also an argument against buying used, an activity which isn't just legal by sane definition but is also a fundamental property right.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This is doubly true in cases where the creator isn't necessarily a massive conglomerate that can soak minor losses, but even there you're potentially putting the jobs of hundreds of people at risk if cumulative loss of sales becomes too impactful.

Piracy is generally proportionate to success. Unless something is out of print or not sold in a certain market, you're not going to see a 90% piracy rate.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Sierra used to mention at least one case where, in the days before DRMs were really a big thing, one of their major titles sold more copies of a strategy guide than they'd actually sold copies of the game itself.

Which isn't exactly a great metric for actually determining piracy, assuming that Sierra was being honest in the first place.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Yeah, but then you're getting into the entitled asshole argument. Way too many people today seem to have the belief that the world should be obligated to provide them with every experience they want without ever having to pay for it, and thus moralize their piracy into a social obligation. When realistically, if you're not going to legitimately purchase a creative work, you also have zero right to experience it at all. Your civil rights don't include life, liberty, and the pursuit of watching Game of Thrones without paying HBO.

Except no, one conclusion doesn't naturally follow the other. Having a realistic opinion in regards to the damages incurred does not magically justify piracy. You're invoking a false correlation. For instance, claiming that a gentle shove is less harmful than a stabbing is a statement of fact, not an advocation for shoving.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'll be perfectly honest, I'm one of the first people who will resort to piracy and intellectual property theft left and right if it's convenient (I've read lots of books and comics, watched plenty of shows and movies, and listened to a fair amount of music I never paid for), but I'm at least self-aware enough to admit that it's absolutely morally wrong, and I have no problem with it being legally wrong, either.

Which isn't something really even being debated. I don't recall one person highlighting piracy as a good thing. 1:1 piracy (ie, the digital transmission of a work in its original form) has been acknowledged as theft. The point of contention is that it's a lesser form of theft when compared to material theft.

And, broadly speaking, it's also worth remembering that, unlike other products, there's no "ceiling" when it comes to the profits for an intellectual property because even the material cost for a unit (in the case of physical theft) is generally negligible compared to other products. You generally have more upfront cost, but you have a tremendous margin. However, very little of that money actually goes to the content creators -- "Hollywood accounting" being a perfect example -- which makes even the potential harm from lost profits seem like a weak argument since most of the profits vanish within the system, often by grift. If you actually wanted to support a content creator, you'd be better off just paying them directly via Patreon or something and then letting them use that money to finance their work.
---

What have you done
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Well then you open the rabbit hole as to where the harm comes from in regards to theft entirely

There is no rabbit hole, though. You're depriving them of money, and if the creator (bicycle maker, art creator, etc.) has no monetary incentive to make their products to begin with, then they won't.

And it's less defending capitalism than defending common sense. A world of rampant theft is a world where there's no incentive to create anything to steal to begin with, unless you get into some type of socialism paradise shit (THAT is a rabbit hole to go down).

I can already see I kicked a hornet's nest and made this a bigger topic than I wanted to, so I won't really revisit this discussion. Like I said, I don't care what piracy you engage in, and you can use whatever reasoning you wish to justify it. I just wanted to point out that these justifications make one sound like an edgelord if you're really going to start questioning what "theft" is.
---

It won't matter to some people unless it's their bike, or their music, or in our case, their video game.

The question you have to ask yourself is,

"Would you be okay with anyone taking your hard earned work, and not giving me money or credit for my hard work?"

Because you all bloody well know that if you made a hit song or a hit videogame then you would want every nickel and dime from the sell or use of that product.

So trying to pretend that ANY reason to take what isn't yours, in any way, shape, form or fashion, isn't all that bad or justifiable or even understandable is just dumb.

To quote Blade, "Mother ****** we're not the March of Dimes."
---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

There is no rabbit hole, though. You're depriving them of money, and if the creator (bicycle maker, art creator, etc.) has no monetary incentive to make their products to begin with, then they won't.

Few problems with that statement. First, whether you pirate or just don't consume the media at all, it's the same financial impact to the content creator. Ergo you're essentially arguing that fans are obligated to buy all of a creator's work. I enjoy the Pokemon franchise and I've bought multiple copies of some games, but I haven't bought every single game in the franchise and, I should add, I've pirated content from it at times such as playing a fan-translated version of Ruby before Ruby was released. If we're going with the deprivation of money reducing incentives argument, then the fact that I never bought (or played) Black2 and many of the spinoffs means that I'm hurting the company.

Second, it presupposes that creators only produce content when compensated, which is completely untrue.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

And it's less defending capitalism than defending common sense. A world of rampant theft is a world where there's no incentive to create anything to steal to begin with, unless you get into some type of socialism paradise shit (THAT is a rabbit hole to go down).

Which is an argument of scale and magnitude. However, keep in mind that intellectual theft is most rampant in China yet people STILL release products there. In fact, a car company was forced by bad public reception to back down from enforcing a copyright claim against a company copying its vehicles because the Chinese were boycotting them and they realized that it was in their best interests to just let the matter drop.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

I just wanted to point out that these justifications make one sound like an edgelord if you're really going to start questioning what "theft" is.

Nobody is justifying theft. However, there's an important distinction between material and intellectual theft, and pretending that no such distinction exists only hurts your case.

The Wave Master posted...

It won't matter to some people unless it's their bike, or their music, or in our case, their video game.

Again, it's important to distinguish material and immaterial theft. They are not the same thing nor should anybody claim that they are.

The Wave Master posted...

The question you have to ask yourself is,

"Would you be okay with anyone taking your hard earned work, and not giving me money or credit for my hard work?"

Because you all bloody well know that if you made a hit song or a hit videogame then you would want every nickel and dime from the sell or use of that product.

The question you have to ask yourself is,

"If somebody isn't going to buy my intellectual product, is it okay that they enjoy it anyway?"

Honestly, if you're a content creator who does it for anything except just money, that's a hard question. While it's annoying that people aren't compensating you for your work, it's also gratifying to know that people are still consuming it and their usage might boost your sales down the road.

Equally important, while piracy is illegal and theft of any kind is morally wrong (yes, I'm including self-help where you recover property by theft rather than law enforcement), it's worth remembering that if somebody goes down to their local library or borrows a copy from a friend, you aren't making money then either. Should you be fuming and cursing out libraries, lending, etc?

However, none of that should be conflated with material theft considering that's ACTUAL loss as opposed to a virtual loss.
---

Raganork10 posted...

Nier Automata is so good, and is made by such a humble man that strives to make unique, thought-provoking experiences, that I felt the $60 I paid for it was worth every cent, and I will rarely say that. Not only is it the best game I've played in years, but it's something that I'm positive will stick in my mind forever, much like the first game. Anyone that pirates it should feel ashamed. Anything else released this year? I don't care; do what you'd like.

what about digimon cyber sleuth 2

Zeus posted...

Nobody is justifying theft.

>writes 34 paragraphs trying to justify it
---

HellHole_ posted...

Zeus posted...

Nobody is justifying theft.

>writes 34 paragraphs trying to justify it

Except it's not a justification. It's correcting bad arguments which weaken the case against piracy. If you make claims completely divorced from reality, people are more inclined to not take it seriously.

Here's a good example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

What happened? It just spawned jokes like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ByW2d4C0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg
---

they aren't bad arguments though
---

HellHole_ posted...

they aren't bad arguments though

Saying that downloading a video is like stealing somebody's bike is a terrible argument. Claiming that people only create content when they're compensated is flat-out wrong (just look at any number of fanfics which, by the way, are all examples of piracy). And, of course, one act of piracy doesn't equate to one lost sale -- that's something only believed by the record labels and used as propaganda when pushing SOPA.
---

obtaining something illegally is wrong, regardless of how you want to justify it

stop
---

HellHole_ posted...

obtaining something illegally is wrong, regardless of how you want to justify it
stop

So are you saying morality comes from the law?
Because most people say law comes from morality.

HellHole_ posted...

obtaining something illegally is wrong, regardless of how you want to justify it

stop

Which literally nobody has argued against.
---

wow man have some respect for yourself

you're not a nobody

you're a somebody who needs tony danza
---