Game of Truth

REZ: i remember one summer a long time ago
REZ: probably middle school
REZ: i went to a “writing camp” over the summer
REZ: i.e. a class run by non-teachers
REZ: and for some reason i forget we played this game
REZ: two people would be blindfolded and put into a ring
REZ: a rolled up newspaper would be thrown in there
REZ: and there’s two stages to the game
REZ: first is someone needs to find the newspaper
REZ: second is when the newspaper is found, it’s announced, then the guy with the newspaper needs to be able to find and whack the other guy
REZ: arena size was…
REZ: i was a kid so it was smaller; i’m trying to imagine how large it’d be for an adult
REZ: 9×9′ or 10×10′, thereabouts
REZ: i wasnt the first to play so i got a chance to see others play for a while, maybe it was even the second or third time it happened until it was my turn
REZ: maybe multiple days, maybe not, i forget
REZ: but the way i saw people do it was really really obtuse
REZ: granted it’s young teens doing it but whatever they had in their minds, it was different than mine
REZ: newspaper’s somewhere on the ground, and what they do is they reach out at different spots with their hands to see what’s there
REZ: second phase was basically the same except standing up and with one guy not reaching out at different spots
REZ: maybe 3~5 minute rounds of people blindfolded, acting as if they weren’t blindfolded
REZ: as if the lights had just been turned off
REZ: the whole time.
REZ: then it came my turn with some girl
REZ: and i swam along the carpet
REZ: the objective was to find a newspaper and there was nothing that would hurt me, so the strategy as far as i could tell involved covering the largest amount of area as soon as possible
REZ: made me look like an idiot but i wasn’t interested in that
REZ: so basically, breaststroke.
REZ: unfortunately my strategy wasn’t able to get me the newspaper because i hadn’t thought through how to measure covered ground versus uncovered ground, and i started in a bad direction
REZ: i hit the edge of the arena multiple times and didn’t know where i was facing after i got turned around
REZ: so now i’m the hunted versus the hunter
REZ: and rather than walking around with the smallest profile like a girl in a movie walking down a dark unfamiliar street
REZ: my upper body was about as wide as it’d normally be
REZ: but i was basically squatting with how far apart my legs were
REZ: and rather than having (nothing) to indicate to me where my opponent was
REZ: i listened and felt for heat
REZ: if i felt something, i’d move far with only a few strides
REZ: i’d stay mostly put otherwise unless something changed
REZ: it went on for 10~15 minutes until the “teachers” finally stopped it.
REZ: i got pretty popular afterwards for a few minutes.
REZ: then afterwards the game was broken and i don’t think anyone really felt tension from playing it anymore.
REZ: both players would always start out with breaststroke and whoever got the newspaper would instantly start swinging it around like a madman
REZ: i forget if everyone actually got a chance to play in the end or if it was just stopped without comment.
REZ: oh yeah i forgot one part of the story
LAX: I feel like someone would have accidentally gotten punched like that
REZ: when the blindfold was put on, i was also the first to insist on a certain way it was put on
REZ: namely, that they didn’t cover my ears.
REZ: oh sure
REZ: i meant relatively speaking
REZ: rather than a swordsman in a dark dungeon on the wary for large monsters
REZ: the hunter actually did assume the role of the hunter after that
REZ: moved quick, “sword” in front, extended arms
REZ: one time where i really did change ‘everything’.
REZ: i solved it
REZ: and then i ruined it.
LAX: What do you mean ruined it?
REZ: what’s the point in playing a game?
LAX: To win
REZ: no no no
REZ: that’s the point when you’re already playing a game
REZ: why do you pick up a game?
REZ: why play a game rather than do something else?
LAX: Because other stuff is boring?
REZ: yes
REZ: because games are fun
REZ: it wasn’t fun after i and whoever came after me solved it, me with the search and defensive standards, and him with the offensive standard
REZ: “everyone” had a certain understanding of “how” the game was played
REZ: then i played it
REZ: and that other guy played it.
REZ: it was a game of tension and mystery
REZ: then it became a dice roll.
REZ: or rather, a coin flip.
REZ: i wonder if i was the dumb one in the end.
LAX: Nope
LAX: You were the only one to think outside the box
LAX: The rest of the kids followed in your footsteps, no one else attempted to change it
LAX: It’s like when a new “unbeatable” meta shows up in a game
LAX: Everyone conforms to that meta and no one tries to break it
LAX: Everyone was doing what you did rather than thinking about how to beat what you did
LAX: AKA they were fucking stupid sheep
REZ: as was the case with most educational summer camps, no kid actually wanted to be there and little of it was interesting at all
REZ: that was the first time something happened that was both interesting and something they couldnt simply replicate at home
REZ: you really do need a human ring creating an arena for no danger of running into things to be involved, and enough eyes on the scene to determine what the objective state of the game is
REZ: but after those two games it was just another thing to do.
REZ: and then not a thing to do, because it stopped.
REZ: back to writing stupid shit no one cares about and no one reads.
LAX: The problem with your story isnot that you ruined the game
LAX: It’s that the game was stupid.
REZ: oh sure
LAX: Or more that the rest of the kids were….
REZ: we’re adults and we have experience with games so we can see that the design was absolutely retarded
REZ: but i don’t think that changes the purpose and niche the game filled for that situation at that time
REZ: everyone played the game as if there was also the rule that you had to act as if you could actually see
REZ: and that created a certain feel for the game
REZ: i played as if that rule didn’t exist and revealed that the emperor wasn’t really wearing any clothes
REZ: good for me i suppose
REZ: but all that was left for me and everyone else after that was looking at a hairy fat ugly old man.
LAX: The real problem is that you were theonly person that actually played the game
LAX: In a competetive game the goal is to win
LAX: Or rather to beat the other person
LAX: Everyone saw that you found the winning defense strategy
LAX: If there were a few smart kids in that group the game could have been a bit more like rock paper sissors with a phsyical aspect
LAX: The problem with being smart is you tend to ruin the “fun” for everyone else who isn’t smart.
LAX: No one else there had the physical or mental capacity to win aginast a decently thought out plan
LAX: But, was there a point to that story?
REZ: i’ve been reading some of the kaiji stuff i hadnt before since i cant sleep and something in there reminded me of this story
REZ: the point was that i wasn’t sure if it was the right move
LAX: It was the right move for you
REZ: it was the right move inside the game.
LAX: Same difference
REZ: no, i think it was the wrong move outside
REZ: there’s fewer smart people than dumb people
LAX: No matter what, the same outcome would have happened
REZ: if smart people can figure out a way to win, they should also figure out the cost of ruining the whole thing
REZ: on a long enough timeline, yes
REZ: but it was a camp of like 4 weeks, maybe 16 days
REZ: and its not like we played all that time
REZ: the dumb kids wouldn’t have made it out, only the smarter ones
REZ: we could’ve played for a few hours longer rather than not
LAX: With enough iterations the game would have evolved anyways
LAX: With your strat that is
LAX: Someone would have figured out how to beat it
LAX: Really, the burden lies on the teachers.
LAX: For ruining the game
LAX: They’re the ones who cancled it, presumably
REZ: i think that way of thinking will evade the understanding of a lot of things people do
REZ: there are more dumb kids than smart kids, more dumb people than smart people
LAX: Sure
REZ: how much of society is run with the super smart people pretending just enough so that all the dumb people continue enjoying life the way things are?
REZ: or rather: not seeing how absolutely retarded their situation is, not realize such a thing, and thus also never start trying to even want to look for a way out of it?
LAX: A lot.
REZ: probably.
REZ: and people like us, not-dumb not-super-smart people, spend time looking at how to win the individual games instead.

Advertisements

Vector of Truth vs Vector of History

A long time ago for a reason I don’t remember, I was watching a Q&A session with developers of a videogame I didn’t play. The game was World of Warcraft, the session was at BlizzCon, the questioner was some guy and the answerer was the lead producer. Or developer. Some title that was a “lead” but not a “writer”. I remember having played AION at this point so it must’ve been 2009/2010, i.e. pretty close to the peak of the days of MMORPGs. Or in other words, the start of their decline. And World of Warcraft was the biggest one in subscriber count, in world size, in game depth, in all primary respects.

The guy asked some question about how the recent update made sense, given that some prior lore established by these minor characters in this quest somewhere said something. Took quite a while for him to explain things. Very serious business. His rhetorical skill didn’t quite get there, but from what he said it sounded like something that could potentially overturn the entire canon. At least a few few of the guys near the mic stand looked like if they hadn’t come with it themselves, they were considering it seriously now.

There were two guys sitting on stage, some head honcho money-guy and our lead. After a short pause, our lead answered the question. I don’t remember if any of the guys around the mic were satisfied, or if the camera even panned back to show the reaction.

I do remember what happened between the two representatives of Blizzard right before the answer. A quiet signal between themselves, to signal who’d lean into their mic to answer the audience. This was back in the days before the prevalence of 720p, the camera wasn’t zoomed in, and it was only there for a moment, in and out in a flash. But I caught it. Any human who was even remotely watching would’ve caught it.

It was a chuckle.


I woke up today and checked my usual internet feeds to see that /v/ had a sticky. That’s not something that happens every day, what’s in it? The line “It’s dead, jim.”, and a link to some guy’s blog. The link is some pseudo-fanfiction where all the names were changed around for some reason, which I didn’t read beyond figuring out it was written from the perspective of the real character which I knew the name of, from a game I’d never played, but knew enough about to get the gist of things. So I went to my other feed and asked, “didn’t everyone know it was dead? who’s this guy and why does he matter?”.

Turns out that this Marc Laidlaw guy was a lead writer, and the meaning of the existence of this “fanfiction” was that Half-Life 2: Episode 3 was dead.

Half Life 2 was released in Nov 2004. Half Life 2: Episode One (a sequel) was released Jun 2006, and the most recent one, Half Life 2: Episode Two, was released Oct 2007. But that sticky still got a ton of posts and the rest of the catalog is filled with threads about it.

/v/ is a place which prides itself on realism. With a few exceptions, positivity about anything is regarded as shilling/marketing. It’s seen through No Man’s Sky, Might No. 9, Star Citizen, and a lot of big names hyped by all the big journalists which turned out to be a whole bunch of nothing. Kickstarters are all bad, Early Access are all bad, anything by this guy or that company are all bad, basically everything is bad unless said otherwise – and they can back it up with a seemingly endless number of examples. And yet, even after the perhaps unprecedentedly realistic crowd reaction to Valve’s announcement of their new digital card game, many people still thought that HL3 was going to be a thing.

10 years of back-to-back constant watching and participating in other peoples’ dreams being crushed wasn’t enough to convince some that they weren’t special.

Or maybe something else is going on here.


[Review] Persona 5

5/8

Persona 5 felt like it could’ve been a masterpiece at more points than one, and simply ran out of fuel on everything almost before it started. Quality lasted longer in some areas than others, in ways that only highlighted how unfortunate the other pieces became. I really think I should give it a 3 for how glaring the holes are. But for most of the game itself I didn’t notice them, and I was just happily chugging along, thanks to a great overall feel created by a handful of exceedingly well-crafted elements.

I picked up this game because of the waifus and knew nothing about it going in other than that it had waifus, one which said “Let’s do it in the student council room”, and a character named after Mishima. I’ve never played a Persona or a Shin Megami Tensei game before, and in recent memory the only game of this “JRPG” genre I’ve played in recent memory was Neptunia Rebirth 1, which I am not going to complete. I used JP dub and EN sub and played on the PS3, final playtime was ~120 hours. HowLongToBeat average is currently a little north of 105, a number I believe is too low.

Persona 5 didn’t need to be 120 hours. Among other things videogames are unique in that they can provide such a long experience, allowing so much time and space to get invested into its world and story. Persona 5 did amazing in the first 1/8, then cruised fine until about the 2/3 mark, after which the quality disappeared conspicuously disappeared in huge chunks, only getting worse until the game finally ended. There were still a few shining bits, but they no longer made sense in light of everything else.

If you do plan to play Persona 5:

  • Read the manual, or if it’s no longer online by time of reading, search for “persona fusion chart”. That’s the important bit and it’s not explained ever in-game.
  • Dungeons, or “Palaces”, are completable in a single in-game day, and it’s important to do this to free up the other days to spend time with people.
  • The doctor gives a discount after a certain point, the fortune teller and shogi player have good abilities, and the maid will do your laundry and some other things to give more time.
  • It’s basically impossible to max relationship with everyone on a blind run. It might be possible with a guide, but even then it’d have to be really tight and even less freedom to do anything at all.
  • Maxing a relationship gives a little extra story per character at the end of the game, so go for 10s with your favorite characters over a few more 9s.
  • Upgrading to maximum armor isn’t the most important thing in the world.
  • Upgrading guns is not important at all.
  • It is better to capture lower level personas and merge them into something your level than to capture personas your level. This will always be the case.
  • Don’t read the rest of this review. You will enjoy it more if you don’t know how it works. This is true of most things, but for Persona 5 it crosses the border between barely being worth the time to arguably not at all. Arguments which I will make.

I learned a lot on how characters and ideas can be written, enjoyed the art and music immensely, and picked up a few waifus, and upon completion I thought for sure it was on the thumbs up side rather than not. But the more I thought about it the worse it got.

If it didn’t have perfectly voices with gorgeous characters, funny banter, generally fun music, and an amazing user interface – that is to say, if it didn’t have its production quality – it’d be a 3 for sure. It did have those though, and I can’t say they don’t count. Unfourtunately there’s not much I have to say about those, other than the user interface. I’m not aware enough about the implications or differences of using one voice actor over another, or a certain costume or shape for a character over another. They’re all perfect as far as I can tell. If you’re just looking to spend time with pretty voiced waifus, this game is not a bad choice at all.

What I can talk about is the writing and how time was distributed and spent.

And boy oh boy does Persona 5 have things to talk about.

> USER INTERFACE
> FLOW AND BALANCE
> — (Timeslots)
> — (Story Across Gameplay Loop)
> — (Real Time Quantified)
> — (Grinding)
> — (Combat Progression in SMT Games)
> WRITING
> — (Theme and Motivation)
> — (Plot Progression)
> — What was the story intended to convey?
> — (The Bad Ending)
> — (Characters, specifically Morgana)
> — (Characters: Akechi Goro)
> CONCLUSION

Continue reading

[Reviews] (various)

There’s a few things I’ve seen and played that I’d like to write about just a bit on my experience with them. Some are more recent, some not so much, some I’ve even written about at some length before, but for one reason or another I don’t think they’re worth posting about at length in individual writeups, at least at this time.

Especially considering how it’s been a month and I still haven’t written the one on Nier:Automata.

Currently I don’t have many reviews up so data points are overall lacking. These should give a clearer view on what the value of my opinion is.

Anime


Angel Beats: 6/8
Memorable characters. Gets a bit melodramatic at times, but it completes the job successfully, and no problems can be found with its overall presentation quality. (range: 5~8)

Amagi Brilliant Park: 5/8
The initial premise setup and its sense of urgency was done well, but for most of its runtime it felt like a mediocre variety show. Unlike its superb visuals, tonally it’s just all over the place. Maybe the original was better? I don’t remember much other than air fairy’s luscious back, the pervert pink mascot, and Sento’s sentos. (range: 4~7)

Code Geass: 8/8
Boy gains superpower and fights against the world. (range: 6~8)

Code Geass R2: 6/8
My powerlevel is greater than your powerlevel. Also not a cohesive story. It was an incredulous trainwreck which was fun enough to watch the first time, but the overall quality outside the animation was a downgrade from the original. (range: 4~8)

Cross Ange: 5/8
First half is simple but shows signs of good direction and writing every now and again. Second half is terrible no matter which way you spin it and a chore, but the character of Ange is enough to carry it… once. This is only worth watching because Ange is an interesting character type and it’d be interesting to see someone like her in a world which doesn’t simply bend over to whatever she or the plot wants her to do. (range: 1~7)

Fate/Zero: 7/8
Just like the original VN, this story is largely carried by amazing standalone scenes which make the rest of the “actual story” pale in comparison – but this time, “the rest” is also pretty good. The second half feels rushed compared to what feels like a very carefully planned and arrange first half, but other than that it’s a good experience. (range: 6~8)

Gabriel Dropout: 4/8
Great ED, terrific characters, good animation, plenty of funny reaction faces, but in the end, there’s no reason to watch this over something else. In the end, in any media, the writing cannot be allowed to be the poorest contributor. It feels like something made just to make ends meet, for an audience that just wants something to watch. Which is okay. But for me it missed the cut. (range: 3~6)

Heroic Age: 7/8
Generic story with a generic premise, filled with generic characters using generic writing. A couple of the music pieces aren’t so generic. Overall consistency in direction, though, is not generic at all. (range: 4~8)

Kobayashi’s Maid Dragon: 5/8
Ravioli Ravioli Dragon Loli. Largely a visual experience, KyoAni really knows what to animate and how to color a scene. First ~third move things along, but the rest of it feels like disjointed filler, and the final episode had people out of character for the sake of wrapping things up. (range 3~7)

Madoka: 6/8
Madoka was really annoying and I only put up with because everyone was talking about how it was that decade’s Evangelion. Madoka both the show and the character; as far as I’m concerned all she did for the first 9 episodes was cry. Episode 10 was great, and definitely it wouldn’t have had as much impact if not for the first 9, but couldn’t we have done just a bit more with ~180 minutes worth of time? And how am I supposed to accept that conclusion? There’s some pretty strict logic explicitly established about magic, and as far as I can tell it’s contradicted. I can imagine how it was a groundbreaking anime, but even as of today I haven’t watched another magical girl anime so I don’t know. Perhaps one day I’ll rewatch it and see why it’s so great. Maybe I judged too much too early. But for now, from what I remember, not so much. (range: 2~8)

Infinite Ryvius: 8/8
Lord of the Flies in Space, except this time, there’s more than one lord, there’s an overarching plot and world tying it all together, and there’s as conclusive an ending as can realistically be, with fantastic music and voice acting. (range: 7~8)

No.6: 1/8, incomplete
I wanted to see something about utopias and societal structures’ effects on individuals and cultures. I got homosexuals wasting my time. (range: 1~4)

Psycho-Pass: 8/8
I wanted to see something about utopias and societal structures’ effects on individuals and cultures. And that’s exactly what I got. (range: 7~8)

Shirobako: 8/8
It could’ve had a better series-spanning story. The main character got less development and focus than the other supporting characters introduced in the beginning. That being said, everything else about it was perfect. (range: 6~8)

Steins;Gate: 8/8
This is the only anime which I don’t remember a single dull episode. Every episode had enough to keep me on the edge of my seat for the next. Its story has parts which don’t make sense, its art is undeniably terrible, but the writing, visual composition, timings, and music worked. Things kept moving, and they didn’t stop moving. Common wisdom says things should be changed up every now and then to keep everything fresh, that’s why fighting games have slow simple puzzles in them. Perhaps there were slow periods in Steins;Gate? If I really slowed down and thought about it, they’re probably there. But everything was arranged so that the story felt like it was always flowing. (range: 8~8)

Terra e…: 1/8, incomplete
3 episodes in and we have a protagonist who is actively aware of his superpowers and spends 2 of them saying “yadaa”, i.e. “I don’t wanna”. Like, that’s what he does. His lines are “yadaa”, “yadaa”, and “yadaa”. There’s no interesting visuals or thoughts which justify him to the audience. He just doesn’t want to be involved in something dangerous, even though he’s been helped and he can’t go back to the way things were. No reason. So I found no reason to continue. (range: 1~4)

The iDOLM@STER: 6/8

With worldwide economic depression and population/demographic instability on top of blank check ideology saying change is good with corruption and hypocrisy showing through the cracks at every other turn, moe rises because of a critical “new market”. It’s the oldest “market” for storytelling there is, but one that has been disdained and thrown away by the public because of how overused and exploited it’s been in every field. In a sense the genre’s distinction shows it too is a last-ditch exploitation, as it relies on the image of innocent young girls in order to function.

Moe sells “hope”.

(range: 5~8)

Videogames


Assassin’s Creed 2: 6/8
The characters aren’t the most interesting people ever, but they’re there, and the writers play them approximately correctly. Maps are varied enough in theme to keep things interesting, even though rooftop running everywhere feels about the same – none of them are slippery due to rain or something, for example. Boats were nice. Story is revenge and stumbling upon pieces of a grander mystery. The story-relevant puzzles sucked. But Ezio’s character sold the whole package in the end. (range: 3~7)

Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood: 4/8
I really liked this game the first time I played it, but after replaying it’s really just a bunch of side quests and menu mini-games in a less interesting map than its predecessor. There’s a story, but it’s sparse and forgettable. Horses and later fast-travel makes primary game mechanic largely obsolete. You also become a one-man army instead of an assassin. You also have an army. Game made entirely for fanservice. (range: 4~6)

Assassin’s Creed 3: 2/8, incomplete
A game whose primary mechanic is stealth freerunning in dense cities cities across rooftops decides it’s a good idea to put a lot of distance between buildings where there are buildings and long-range precision snipers on those rooftops with instant communication with every other sniper. There’s also a lot of space with no rooftops at all. Characters are who cares. Story is… not about anyone we care about. (range: 2~4)

Company of Heroes: 7/8
An RTS where you don’t need 300 APM! And the units have fun with you. (range: N/A)

Guild Wars 2: 1/8
I lost Fort Aspenwood for this. (last played Oct 2012)

LA Noire: 4/8, incomplete
The most boring and pointless open world I’ve ever seen, which you can thankfully avoid by telling the AI you don’t want to drive. This reduces the game to the interrogations and a little bit of clue-searching, which were not interesting enough for me to finish doing myself. I watched a streamer play it instead. Worth a watch. (range: 3~6)

League of Legends: 1/8
The game involves playing 20~50 minutes of mostly PvE to have the match be decided on, depending on the season and patch, 3~15 seconds of fighting, fighting which doesn’t necessarily involve you. This along with some other features make the game inherently “toxic”. Patches change how certain characters work entirely and come about at random, the developers won’t stop autofellating about how great and hard their job is, and there’s always, always new characters, which are just ever so coincidentally always overpowered on release. Also, it’s rigged. (last played Dec 2013)

MGSV: GZ, TPP: 1/8
This game sold a full price demo that was better than the actual game. It had a cutscene at the climax which is just two characters sitting across from one another, silently since the big song finished and it was too short, yours and the main villain’s, and you’re in a standard idle animation. In general it’s full of emptiness and false promises. Dropping a powerline and electrocuting people with it and various other “haha isn’t it funny how things can interact in that way” are the only things going for this game. The game’s map might as well have been procedurally generated, and the second “half” of the game is literally the same missions as the first half with a few extra difficulty conditions. Kojima is not a genius, he’s a hack. “Director”? Don’t make me laugh. (range: 1~4)

Remember Me: 5/8
The art, lighting, music, and world design (read: lore design, not level design) are top notch. The ass is ok. Everything else was unfortunately forgettable. (range: 3~7)

Rocket League: 8/8
An online PvP game which has a cheap box price where the devs implement continual microtransactions/patches that actually don’t screw with balance? And it’s fun? What sort of sorcery is going on here? That being said I don’t play it much because it really is physics based so experience is locked behind physical skill with a controller, which means many hours of practice – with a training mode that has lots of official and fan-made practice shots. Decent casual fun too. (last played Jan 2017)

Saint’s Row: The Third: 5/8
Yet another open world game where you get an arsenal of clothes, weapons, and vehicles, but it doesn’t take itself too seriously and has some fun. And it can be pretty fun.(range: 4~7)

Saint’s Row IV: 2/8
What’s the point in having an open world where there’s no meaning to any location, no meaning to any vehicles, no meaning to any weapons, and nothing can stop your momentum? Crashing into cars just moves them out of the way. Running into a building just sends you running up its side. The only thing which stops you are foot-sized objects, I can’t remember if they were curbs or parking blocks or what but something indescript of about that size were the only things that mattered. Enemies didn’t matter, world didn’t matter, story didn’t matter. Nothing mattered except foot-sized objects, and they were not the antagonists, though maybe they should’ve been. (range: 2~5)

The Stanley Parable: 2/8
This isn’t the first game I’ve seen talk Post-Modernism, but it’s definitely the worst. This gamename is only big because of marketing and lazy idiots who haven’t seen anything better. A waste of 20$ and a waste of 3 hours. Not worth watching either. (range: 1~3)

The Witcher 3: 3/8, incomplete
The graphics, Ciri, and Yen are great, and that’s about it. It took me quite a while to figure out what was wrong so perhaps it deserves some more bonus points, but the basic idea is that there isn’t really much to do. It’s open world, but you don’t have any good indication beforehand which areas are viable for you. I was taking what I thought was a shortcut through the woods to a certain sidequest when I got instagibbed after trying to run from an enemy I found that I couldn’t damage. The combat doesn’t pretend it’s more than two buttons and TTK is long. Weapon durability doesn’t add to anything. Never had money or anything I wanted to buy except healing and repair items. The writing was pretty good at some points, but there’s too little of it and too much crap inbetween. Probably would’ve quit sooner if I didn’t hear Sawashiro’s voice, probably would’ve quit later if I modded it to play as Ciri, but I would’ve seen the core stuff eventually. (range: 3~6)

World of Tanks: 1/8
It’s rigged. You are looking at models of tanks going through motions while after the game server flips a coin. (last played Mar 2017)

[Review] Nier

6/8

xkeob2c

At certain points reaches 8, but an unfortunately large amount is 2, so this will look more like a negative review than a positive one.

I played NieR because Automata[1] was amazing, and I wanted to see what else its original writer had made. It’s said that the game got a cult following, and at least one of the reasons why a sequel was made was because one of the bigwigs at Square Enix threatened to quit unless it happened. Automata was truly an experience not recreatable just by watching a video, and I had a PS3, so I saw no excuse not to get the original. I generally don’t mind things like graphics too much, so as long as the story was good I thought everything would turn out just dandy. I played the international version with Papa Nier.

But by the end of my time with it I couldn’t ignore its issues. I played through ending A and ending B, but I decided to watch C and D on YouTube. The distance between A and B was about an hour plus, and the other endings were probably equally as far away given my progress, but what faced me was so bad I decided to save two hours of gameplay to deliver story in favor of just watching the changed cutscenes in the form of a video. The story really carries that game, and I think it might’ve been a 7 or 8 if I hadn’t played Automata first.

But it only just carries it; at every other moment it was clear it wasn’t an easy carry.

My recommendation is to play Nier at least through ending B, as there’s a fair enough amount of things added that have enough importance they can’t just be watched in a video. C and D aren’t too hard, but I think the combat actively detracts enough from the experience that it’s harder to connect with the cutscenes as a player than as a video watcher. As for side quests, do them until you get the feeling they’re a bother, they don’t change too terribly many things. If it seems like you need to spend money to do them, do it, you’re not about to need money for anything else. Above all else don’t use spears. Do NOT use spears, they will break the game so much you actually are better off just watching a video. A couple of other weapons are too strong too, so the best thing is to not use any weapons except the starter one- and two-handed swords and whatever upgrades you happen to be able to afford – gathering for upgrades is grinding and grinding the obscure things necessary will detract from enjoyment.

Continue reading

Marketing, ideas, and sorting

I wonder how much can actually be paraded due to a combination of lack of expertise and trust in authority on the side of the audience and social shaming tactics on the side of the deliverer.

Seeing through solar roadways needs some understanding of engineering. Seeing through hyper-realistic portraits needs some understanding of drawing. Seeing through No Man’s Sky needed some understanding of programming or video game design.

Mass Effect Andromeda claims to not be able to make white characters because of the “textures” they used. The new Scorpio console says it’ll be better than the best PCs at the cost of one top-of-the-line PC component. Trump’s Syria attack is defended on the grounds that the president has more “intel”.

No one can be an expert on everything, but neither can one not trust in anything nor not care about others’ opinions. “Fuck haters” and “Question everything” are worse-than-nothing statements because the questions should be directed towards critical points.

I think analyzing people’s backgrounds, connections, and objectives bypasses these problems to a reasonable extent. These should be the baseline, with the “facts and evidence” on the “actual” issues as secondary, because the “actual facts” are more easily fabricated by quite a few orders of magnitude. There are people that lie about their work history, but at some point they leave a trail, and people even in the age of their internet for one reason or another generally don’t change names. Generally speaking peoples’ history of actions are hidden or missing rather than fabricated – the opposite of “actual facts”.

The people most worth looking into demonstrate this principle. Executives are the most powerful and their backgrounds generally aren’t in any “field” – Sooner will an executive of groceries become an executive of pharmaceuticals than a pharmacist, even though their degree might’ve been in partying sociology, or maybe never had a degree at all. Arguing a pharmaceutical executive’s, whether a CEO’s or a politician’s, decisions primarily on basis of biology or chemistry or medicine – or worse, morals – is the discussion level of peons.

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

Any person can expound about ideas. Even when talking about celebrity gossip and keeping up with the Joneses they’re basically talking about ideas. We even have a grammatically correct form of the word for personification: idols.

Expounding on people though is different. Beyond saying she likes cake or he goes weightlifting, can just any person accurately and effortlessly predict what some other person is going to do or say? They can’t. They can’t even fathom where to begin. Of course not, they can’t even understand the people they’ve spent years with!

“I thought you were going to do X.”
“Why in the hell would I do X? That never even occurred to me.”
“I dunno. Maybe you might’ve.”

But he sure does know what’s moral and what’s not or what’s the right thing to do in a certain situation of a field he only heard about two days ago! Just look at all these links and quotes from reputable sources he found on Google.

If only Google could predict what his friends were going to do too, then he could be just as confident and correct with people as he was with ideas. Such a lookup exists, it’s just not available at http://www.google.com, and is only available to advertisers, politicians running for head of state, and other big dollarydoo clients.

But it’s okay, because only small minds discuss people anyways.

Trust, and the nature of reviews

I’ve spent every waking hour the past four days with NieR:Automata and was thinking about how it impacted me and how I’d review and talk about it. I remember hearing somewhere once that everything in the end comes down to “word of mouth”, that all the shiny and flashy marketing campaigns in the world are all just attempts at recreating the same effect with a different structure, so in my mind the least I could do was write about it – for my own memories, and for anyone who reads me or will read me in some other time.

The problem was, going into N:A myself, I didn’t know much anything. I knew

  1. The player character, “2B”, had a phenomenal ass.
  2. It’s made by Platinum, who made another game I enjoyed (MGR)
  3. A short clip of one robot rocking a cradle saying “child. child. child.” and a pair of others, one laying on the ground, the other ramming into it repeatedly, saying “i love you. i love you. i love you.”

I didn’t read the store page on Steam, I might’ve seen a bit of the trailer video and I’ve definitely heard of the weird ball mask guy before, but none of it registered. I went in expecting a corridor-arena action game with stage ratings, literally a MGR with ass and titties.

This expectation directly contributed to my enjoyment of the game and its story.

I had ignored this detail up until this point because it didn’t seem relevant. Yoshimune Kouki’s writing in Muv-Luv Alternative worked in such a way that spoilers didn’t really matter – the tells for things came a mile off, you’d know it was coming, and still it overpowers you – and it’s my favorite story of all time[1]. I’d also seen a lot of my favorite reviewers simply state straight off that the review had spoilers so I copied it and thought nothing more other than trying to not talk about too much. Yoko Taro’s writing though is entirely different and I have to concede. I can’t write or talk about what’s in it with someone who hasn’t played it without directly subtracting from their future enjoyment.

It also made me reconsider just how big a contradiction reviews are. If you are talking about what’s in a game, or anything really, by category it is “spoiling” it.

Without judgment: Attempting to learn about something without getting spoiled is attempting to obtain information without obtaining information.

“Spoil” comes from”spoiled food”, a feeling which is transferred over to hearing about reveals or twists in a game (or anything really, but I’ll be saying “game”) to a person who hasn’t yet had the chance to experience it themselves. It’s a judgment, something that only works in one direction: the other side theoretically could exist but doesn’t, there are few or no complaints against “febrezing” or “microwaving”. The problem is that it doesn’t. Marketing departments everywhere are probably quite glad with this state of affairs, because this means they can sprinkle in as much MSG as they want; people easily understand the difference between eating spoiled food and fresh food, but they easily forget the difference the other way, e.g. between eating fresh food normally and eating fresh food when they’re starving. Since neither the other judgment nor the category have names, I will simply use “spoil” as the name for the category as well, the category of “obtaining information prior to experience“.

I feel this both avoids any fuzzy debates and broadens the concept to greater applicability to a greater number of parties. This means that “this game runs on PC at these certain specs” is also a spoiler. Seemingly pointless, “of course i need to know whether or not i can even play the damn thing”, but it’s not like those specs always make sense. More recently the listed specs for many games have been higher than actually required because it saves the publisher trouble and criticism[2] so it’s possible that people have been turned away when they didn’t have to. The other side, when the listed specs aren’t able to play the game, are generally high profile affairs and result in people trying to play the game when they shouldn’t have.  In both cases, it can be said that those peoples’ experiences have been “spoiled”. These exceptions prove the rule.

The rule means that some “spoiling” is necessary. “Spoil” as a negative judgment refers to the state of the food; “Spoil” as a category refers to the information gathering about the food. Since I don’t have a PS4, I was “spoiled” when I heard that N:A was coming to PC. But it made me want the game, and in turn buy it and play it. Same with 2B’s booty. Same with Platinum. Same with the clip about the machines. The first I probably heard about thanks to Square Enix’s marketing department, the second I don’t remember how it got to me, the last I saw thanks to /v/. Reviews are in the same category. It’s information about the game.

I think the primary problem is people forget why they’re looking for reviews, and some of them why they even play games. There’s a Schaffer Paragraph equivalent that all the average reviewers follow: graphics get a rating, music gets a rating, story gets a rating, gameplay gets a rating, etc. etc. – there’s even one YouTuber’s claim to fame is that he reviews options menus – but I don’t think most people actually care too much about these things. Great looking game with fluid animations for example is certainly better there than not, but most people have had fun or fond memories of games with neither.

The fundamental question is “should I play this game”, the operative word being “play”, a short form for “spend time on”. Reviews generally say the word “get” or “buy” instead and treat it as synonymous with “play”, but they’re not the same[3][4].

The answer is “yes” or “no”.

Taking spoilers the category into account, this means the ideal review is binary.

All the things I said I knew about N:A were great motivators for me going into the game, but it would’ve been even better if I didn’t know about it. Spoilers are necessary to sell the game, but they also necessarily dampen playing it. I already knew 2B had a great butt and had a bunch of lewds on her, so I wasn’t as amazed when I actually saw it in-game. I wasn’t as appreciative of the input fluidity because I knew it was Platinum. The machine scene had negligible impact on me because the overall writing style of the game wasn’t like MLA. I did appreciate some things more because I expected basically a reskin of MGR, but if I had to choose knowing what I knew and knowing nothing, I would choose to know nothing.

Nothing except the “yes”.

All the other stuff talked about in a review are just supporting material for the one bit of info which says “yes” or “no”, and the one meta-bit: whether or not they in particular can be trusted, whether their opinion makes sense. I bought Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun off of a reviewer who gave it a thumbs-down because I read his reasoning: ‘it doesn’t have levelling/experience or customizable skill trees and you can’t choose who to play for each level’. To me this spelled out that the game developers must have had great confidence in their level design, and I was not disappointed. I wish I got his name so I could look him up; I’d take him again any day over wading through more “my score for this game’s graphics is x/10” garbage. If it were possible somehow for him to have exactly the opposite opinion on exactly everything, all I’d need to do is look for things he thumbs-down and I’d have a good time.

The dream setup would be if someone took care of everything for me and made sure it worked on my computer beforehand[5]. If I didn’t know who made it, hadn’t seen any trailers or even any cover art, if all I needed to do was buy and wait to download what I was told to, it’d be the ideal case[6]. Or, less fluorished: be able to select with no prior information a game that is worth the time. Even less fluorished: Remove the necessity of selection skill.

Most of these things really are just a dream and won’t ever happen due to some fundamentally unchangeable logistics, but I think some things could be massively improved and we could get pretty close. From the topics discussed in this post, I can think of two:

– The more positive a review, the less information it contains.

If it’s a bad game, people will want to know why to avoid it. If it’s a good game, people will want to experience it for themselves, so beyond the “yes” it should basically be praises of tiny things, or rebuttals/clarifications of misconceptions.

I think there should be a new, separate “analysis” category (or some other word which people inherently understand “includes spoilers”) which currently barely exists and are usually called “reviews”, probably for SEO purposes. I’m certainly interested in why a game feels phenomenal, but it’s not something I want to think about at all before I’ve tried it out for myself. I do want to know why a game is absolute shit though, if it’s shit. Alternatively,”reviews” should be called “previews” instead, because that’s what they generally are to the intended audience.

– The review starts with the conclusion.

If a person already trusts you, they don’t need to be spoiled with 30+ minutes of gameplay footage and some guy talking, or be bothered to scroll to the bottom to find the score. If they don’t already trust you, why do you think they’d trudge through your review to find out what you thought of it?

Why would they even look at it? Because you have a flashy thumbnail or title? Wouldn’t a score go even better with it, so they get tempted to find out wh-???

…oh. They’ve probably run the numbers and found out they get fewer clicks if the score is revealed upfront haven’t they. And if a review contains fewer words then our friendly neighborhood gaming journalism advocate gets fewer dollarydoos…

Well I don’t run on that system, at least not for reviews, so I’m not going to worry about it.

____________________________________

[6] in terms of the playing experience. i do enjoy ‘shopping around’ reviewers and various materials, and hype is fun too, but i don’t think they’ve ever actually increased my enjoyment of the game. at best, some increased my enjoyment of buying.

[5] i expected to be able to do 1080/medium because that’s what i was able to do with The Witcher 3, which looks significantly better, but in the end i had to settle for 900/low. not a big deal, but i can’t say i had zero negative feelings. yes, they are below the listed “minimum specs”. no, i don’t care.

[4] i think this with the “keeping up with the joneses” effect is a large contributor to all the games people buy and don’t play. which is perfectly fine for the publishers. i wouldn’t be surprised if some major reviewer first used the word because they were bought to.

[3] also one of the ways politics snuck in. “I can’t enjoy this because it’s fast paced but also limited in framerate” is different from “If you buy this game, then you support shitty developers who make shitty graphics”. now, if you’re interested in politics then this is valuable information about the game. but if you’re interested in politics, you want more spoilers at all costs. perhaps there are more people interested in politics than i’d like to believe, and that’s the actual reason for all these shitty reviewers.

[2] paralleled in engineering, there’s always a Safety Factor (SF) in everything that gets built. if you buy a shelf that says maximum load is 100 pounds, you can bet that it’ll hold 120 no problem – just don’t expect to get past warranty with that argument. for reference, aerospace standard SF is ~1.5, civil/structure SF ~2.0.

[1] except maybe N:A, but I’ll have to think about it.