Enjoying a Game That People Say Sucks

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm beginning to see a pattern in game releases these days. A game will be intensely hyped up until it's release, and then when it actually IS released, a few days later, despite positive reviews in publication, it seems the internet's unanimnous opinion is that the game sucks, was a waste of money, and that the publishers and creators are vile people whom they'll never patronize again. And even when the companies make an effort to placate the fanbase, it's almost always "too little too late."

I saw this with Mass Effect 3, a game I thought was epic in scope and story. I personally thought the vagueness of its original ending was troubling, but that the free DLC that extended it alleviated most of my doubts, and I'm still super-excited for Dragon Age: Inquisition. And speaking of Dragon Age, before Mass Effect 3's ending, Dragon Age II being a lackluster and sucky game was the go-to complaint about BioWare, but I had a great deal of fun with the game, especially in terms of the interpersonal relationships between characters. But I've seen video review after video review stating that as a company, BioWare's dead to them, and that the majority of fans are STILL not satisfied by Mass Effect 3's ending, and insist that the Indoctrination theory should have been addressed by BioWare at least as a possibility, rather than summarily dismissed by the Extended cut.

More recently I've encountered this with the release of Rome II: Total War, a game I'd hotly anticipated for a long time. Almost immediately upon release the game was buggy, but I expected that, and figured things would right themselves with time. But there was more to it than bugs. Complaints were common that the game was nowhere near as awesome as the trailers made it out to be. The AI was bad, the turns took too long, balance was crappy, and basically that the game was unfinished upon release. They pointed to Shogun II and even the original Rome: Total War as superior games. Thing is, I hated Rome: Total War. I had fun when I started out, but I got frustrated by the inevitability of squalor rising and rioting in cities, and when I hit a certain point, the game would crash whenever I hit the end turn button, so I couldn't even play the damn game by that point. At least Rome II: Total War let me freakin' PLAY it!

This causing a giant sense of anxiety about purchasing games too. There's a lot of cool-looking games out there, but the people out there saying it sucks are scaring me away with claims of crappy mechanics and bugs and sucky stories and endings and stuff. Have I wasted my money? Am I about to waste my money and time if I go through with it and but the game anyway?

Sometimes I feel these complaints are definitely legitimate, the Xbox One's always online controversy for example and the question of used games and those sorts of things IS an important issue that needs to be challenged if things are to ever be in the consumer's favor. And what I'm wondering, basically, is if these games really DO suck, despite the fact that I don't think they're all that bad. It's coloring my enjoyment of the games because I'm constantly wondering if I'm just rationalizing or sugar-coating what truly is a flawed game, and if these publishers truly ARE lying to their customers and betraying them by releasing crappy games when they promised gold ones.

How much of this vitriol really is true? How much should I heed it? Am I aiding and abetting a lazy and deceptive industry by buying objectively crappy games and attempting to enjoy them out of a sense of loyalty to the brand?

Is something wrong with me? :smallfrown:

[Seatbelt]

You are allowed to enjoy the things you enjoy and still recognize that those things are bad. I played a terrible game whose name I have long since forgotten. Its mechanic was magic the gathering + monopoly. Your characters battled on a monopoly bored. You wandered around this board placing monsters from your deck on tiles. You could upgrade the tiles to give your creatures stat boosts. When the other guy landed on the tile he had to fight your monster with stuff from his deck. If he won he got the tile and killed your monster. If he lost he had to pay out on your hotel.

The game was long, grindy, the story was incomprehensible. It was pretty terrible. I had a lot of fun playing it and I'd never recommend it to anyone ever. Or Front Line: Fuel of War. I played that game. Beat it. Had a decent time. Game was pretty bad. I remember they made driving tanks unfun and thats the only thing I remember about it.


So no. Nothing is wrong with you. Enjoy your terrible games, just understand why people think they're terrible. I can't play Rome 2 without AI improvements because I'm playing it to be challenged on the tactical map. If I wanted an Empire Builder I'd go play Civ 5.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

See and I can't stand the Civ games. They feel so anachronistic, since you can have Egyptian Pharaohs engaging in diplomacy with Abraham Lincoln and stuff. That kind of stuff annoys me incredibly! I want my empire building games to be more culturally consistent. I understand that that kind of difference in technology level is something that happens in the real world and stuff, but Civ games look like someone put the world in a time machine and shook it, and then dumped everyone out to see how all the various historical figures would have interacted with each other, like a Bill and Ted's Excellent Empire Builder! :smallannoyed:

And on a side-note, it seems the only game that almost everyone agrees is a good game is Skyrim, or at least if there ARE people who think Skyrim sucks, they're nowhere near as vocal as the people that say games like Dragon Age II or Rome II suck.

[Tanuki Tales]

Of the games you mentioned, I've only played Mass Effect 3.

And I'm of the camp that Bioware and EA were massive morons for not just claiming the Indoctrination Theory was the plan all along.

Do I think ME3, as a whole, sucked? No.

Do I wish Bioware and EA financial suffering for what I see as a boner move and what I see as the ruining of the end of one of the best franchises I was following? Yes.

[erikun]

I only listen to video game talk to hear about new titles I might not have played, or to listen to some valid features or criticism about the game. Note that anything from people who haven't played the game, or any criticism that isn't about the content of the game itself, I just ignore.

As for if you like the game, go ahead! Continue to enjoy it. I've found my tastes shifting with time, and not enjoying the repetitive or extremely common elements in a lot of games. As such, features that I would fine boring and annoying, you may not. That's a good thing! It means you can pick out the criticisms I have which are valid to you, and ignore the ones that don't apply for you.

[Closet_Skeleton]

They pointed to Shogun II and even the original Rome: Total War as superior games. Thing is, I hated Rome: Total War

The original Rome: Total War seems to have suffered a bit from post-mod bias. Loads of people who loved Rome actually hated the base game.

I'm not a Total War fan but pre-ordered Shogun II and found it impossible to get into. For some reason I listened to a 2 hour pod cast that was basically just three professional reviewers ranting about how much they hated Rome II and another half hour youtube video that was one reviewer doing the same, despite not really having any frame of reference myself.


Or Front Line: Fuel of War. I played that game. Beat it. Had a decent time. Game was pretty bad. I remember they made driving tanks unfun and thats the only thing I remember about it.

I played the first level of that because I got the whole THQ package in a Steam deal for under £30 a year earlier and wanted to play an FPS. Then I never felt like going back to it.


And on a side-note, it seems the only game that almost everyone agrees is a good game is Skyrim, or at least if there ARE people who think Skyrim sucks, they're nowhere near as vocal as the people that say games like Dragon Age II or Rome II suck.

Skyrim got a lot of initial hate for the inconsequential change to its RPG elements. Then like Rome: Total War everyone stopped caring because of the mod community.

I was fine with Mass Effect 3, but I played my brother's games so didn't give EA anything for them. The real problem with ME3 is that it gave fans everything they thought they wanted and then the fans realised that they hadn't actually wanted that stuff anyway. There's cool stuff in ME3 but its hidden in pointless flag check references to the previous two games and the excision of the whole much maligned exploration side-games of the previous two games left there with little to do but shoot stuff in between talking to people.

The only thing from the previous games anyone actually cared about was characters surviving and the Rachni. They first they did okay but boringly and the later they put on the same level of plot important as whether or not you shoot Conrad Verner. I don't need every quest giver from a game that came out years ago popping out for a cameo and I definitely don't want the actual supposedly important choices reduced to that same level. The least they could have done was make it so that if you didn't save the Rachni Queen they would be completely absent from ME3, turning the fallout of that choice to a few points of War potential and a few lines of alternate dialogue for an otherwise identical level is just terrible. Focusing on one or two choices from the previous games and making them actually important would have made the fans of ME2 and ME1 happy, but Bioware only had the pandering nature to give the fans what they ask for and was too scared to give the fans what they needed. As it is the only thing ME3 gave a satisfying conclusion to was the Quarian/Geth story line and then it completely contradicted that section later on and made it stick out even more as the only bit of actual quality.

Part of me feels that ME3 would have been a better game if Shepard had stayed dead after the opening scene of ME2.



Do I wish Bioware and EA financial suffering for what I see as a boner move and what I see as the ruining of the end of one of the best franchises I was following? Yes.

Personally I wish EA suffers financially for just about every venture they take, but I'm bitter and twisted about them in general.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Personally I wish EA suffers financially for just about every venture they take, but I'm bitter and twisted about them in general.

EA has gotten into the mindset that they can turn any popular game into an everyman franchise, like Call of Duty. That means that hard games are dumbed down, unique games are made samey, and they really like their horde modes.

[Zevox]

And on a side-note, it seems the only game that almost everyone agrees is a good game is Skyrim, or at least if there ARE people who think Skyrim sucks, they're nowhere near as vocal as the people that say games like Dragon Age II or Rome II suck.
I wouldn't say the game sucks since I've never played it, but I'm someone who so dislikes the entire design philosophy behind Skyrim, as well as what I've played of Bethesda's other games, that I never have nor ever will play it. For whatever that's worth to you.

But in general, to answer the last question of your post: no, enjoying a game that others hate does not make you bad, in any way. It means your tastes are different. There is no objective "good" or "bad" to video games, only what people like or dislike personally. If you enjoy something like Mass Effect 3 and don't agree with the criticisms leveled at it by those that hate it, then ignore them. Or argue with them, if that's your preference. But don't let it make you think that there's something wrong with you, because that's complete BS. There is no right or wrong on the matter, only completely subjective opinion.


And I'm of the camp that Bioware and EA were massive morons for not just claiming the Indoctrination Theory was the plan all along.
I for one think that's one of the only things they could've done to make it worse. I can at least respect Bioware for trying something surprising with the ending but failing to make it work. I could not respect them for deliberately deceiving their customers like that - whether because the Indoctrination Theory was their actual intention or because they adopted it just to do emergency PR salvage.

[shadow_archmagi]

There's totally an objectivity to game reviews. If you don't agree with them, then your game processing capability must be damaged in some way, and you should see a doctor. To do anything else would be dangerously irresponsible. After all, all humans are identical, and those who perceive experiences differently have been injured.

(That said, Skyrim is awful. Sure, it has stealth, magic, and swordfighting, but all three of those are implemented in a really medicore way. Sure, it has a hundred million NPCs, but most of them don't even have names, and the ones that do barely have two lines of dialogue. I'd much rather play a game like Dragon Age, where there's less freedom but more recurring characters and more sense of consequence to my actions, or a game like Just Cause 2, which has less dialogue but a much better combat/exploration system.)

[Archpaladin Zousha]

It's just that all these forums are also the places where the strategy guides you can't buy in a store are. I can ignore criticisms of Dragon Age or Mass Effect because I can purchase a strategy guide that outlines the quests and gear so I can achieve my PERFECT PLAYTHROUGH quickly and efficiently without turning to the internet and wading through dozens of forums to get the strategies I need.

Total War's not like that, though. There's too much random chance involved for a single strategy guide to cover every possibility in a single campaign. But the people who play it come up with strategies and consistent courses of action that they test multiple times on the hardest difficulties that at least allow them a solid footing from which they can generally utilize trial-and-error without needing to start over. But to find those, I generally have to wade through a forum full of vitriol about how the players feel betrayed by CA and that Shogun II was the best game in every way, shape or form, and that this is worse than their handling of Empire: Total War and Napoleon: Total War, a pair of games they're still very mad about (summary: Empire was considered crappy and while Napoleon fixed a lot of the problems Empire had, it was a self-contained game rather than an expansion, so players couldn't use the new-and-improved mechanics of Napoleon with the larger-scale and more-freedom-of-choice campaign of Empire).

[Hiro Protagonest]

(That said, Skyrim is awful. Sure, it has stealth, magic, and swordfighting, but all three of those are implemented in a really medicore way. Sure, it has a hundred million NPCs, but most of them don't even have names, and the ones that do barely have two lines of dialogue. I'd much rather play a game like Dragon Age, where there's less freedom but more recurring characters and more sense of consequence to my actions, or a game like Just Cause 2, which has less dialogue but a much better combat/exploration system.)

Yeah, Elder Scrolls in general has so much poor stuff, it's an ocean wide and a pond deep. Or maybe puddle deep with a bunch of hidden potholes. Morrowind at least got the exploration part right, the cities look so cool (if hard to navigate).

[Tengu_temp]

If you like a game, play it, if you don't like a game, don't play it. It's that simple. Why do you care what other people think? You talk about blindly following a franchise being bad, but haven't you considered that blindly following the popular opinion is just as bad?

Also, I thought Skyrim is incredibly overrated, and I hate how TES turned most western RPGs into wide but shallow open world games. And I loved ME3, even if the ending was underwhelming.

[Psyren]

Bioware can do very little wrong by me. Their writing is top-notch (especially by video game standards), I care about the journey way more than the destination, and they are serving markets that are woefully marginalized in most games i.e. racial and sexual minorities. And the multiplayer was dynamite; for a studio that had never tried anything like it before they did a bang-up job.

They certainly drop the ball in some places, but Bioware at their best is so far ahead of the competition that I'm willing to forgive them a lot.



And I'm of the camp that Bioware and EA were massive morons for not just claiming the Indoctrination Theory was the plan all along.

Whereas I'm in the camp that would have called them massive morons for going along with all that terrible fanwank.



Is something wrong with me? :smallfrown:

I think you're stressing a bit too much over nothing. People will like what they like.

Also, not sure what Xbox One really has to do with the other two on the list.

[warty goblin]

I'm beginning to see a pattern in game releases these days. A game will be intensely hyped up until it's release, and then when it actually IS released, a few days later, despite positive reviews in publication, it seems the internet's unanimnous opinion is that the game sucks, was a waste of money, and that the publishers and creators are vile people whom they'll never patronize again. And even when the companies make an effort to placate the fanbase, it's almost always "too little too late."

Think of this as expectation whiplash. The game a person ends up with is, if they let themselves get super-hyped, never as good as the game they've fantasized about playing for months. Since people tend to call disappointing things bad, and really disappointing things really bad, this means that for many games you'll get a sizable contingent of folks who think the game is completely horrible.

Add to this the raging entitlement complex that makes up a huge swath of gamer culture, the echo chamber that is the internet, and the rage boner some videogame fans get any time a game company changes something about a franchise, and you've got, well, what we've got.

Easy solution: ignore it. Ignore the hype, ignore the hype backlash, and play what you want to play. Find a couple reviewers with whom you generally agree (and can understand when and why you disagree) and use their output as a guide. Occasionally sure you'll get burned by a turd of a game from which listening to the sound and fury of the internet could have saved you. Personally I find getting the occasional stinker well worth the peace of mind and quality of life to be gained by ignoring the vox populi on this stuff.


More recently I've encountered this with the release of Rome II: Total War, a game I'd hotly anticipated for a long time. Almost immediately upon release the game was buggy, but I expected that, and figured things would right themselves with time. But there was more to it than bugs. Complaints were common that the game was nowhere near as awesome as the trailers made it out to be. The AI was bad, the turns took too long, balance was crappy, and basically that the game was unfinished upon release.
What's particularly amusing about this is that it's exactly the same line that gets rolled out every time a Total War game comes out. Since it seems to be true every single time as well, I'm beginning to suspect that most repeat Total War purchasers in fact suffer from a very strange form of self-hatred.


This causing a giant sense of anxiety about purchasing games too. There's a lot of cool-looking games out there, but the people out there saying it sucks are scaring me away with claims of crappy mechanics and bugs and sucky stories and endings and stuff. Have I wasted my money? Am I about to waste my money and time if I go through with it and but the game anyway?
Buying crap comes with the inherent risk that the crap you buy is crap. Sometimes stuff that seemed likely to be good isn't. No point crying over spilt milk or unfortunate videogame purchases. Otherwise I'd still be sobbing over my Skyrim pre-order. Because I did not like Skyrim, even though the entire internet went into a state of constant orgasm for about two months after it came out. This had absolutely no bearing on how much fun I wasn't having in Skyrim, just like the internet's general dislike of Supreme Commander II hasn't made the hundred odd hours I've spent with it any less enjoyable.



How much of this vitriol really is true? How much should I heed it? Am I aiding and abetting a lazy and deceptive industry by buying objectively crappy games and attempting to enjoy them out of a sense of loyalty to the brand?

Outside of the game not running, there isn't such a thing as an objectively bad game. About the best you can do is something along the lines of 'most people like this' or 'most people dislike that.' But there's no objectively good game. I've enjoyed games the internet hates, and games the internet loves. In some cases these have been the same game, and the general opinion of the game just shifts with time.

Ignoring stupid crap on the internet is really an excellent way to better your life.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

If you like a game, play it, if you don't like a game, don't play it. It's that simple. Why do you care what other people think? You talk about blindly following a franchise being bad, but haven't you considered that blindly following the popular opinion is just as bad?
Because I'm autistic and have a deep and abiding fear that that autism disconnects me from reality in such a way that I make incredibly bad decisions about how and why I spend my money, wasting it on crappy things when I could have spent it on something better. That I wasted my money on a frozen pizza when I could have had a Papa Murphy's Take-And-Bake instead, if you'll indulge me the metaphor. That if I make my decisions in a vacuum, using only my opinions, I'll make mistakes, which aggravates my perfectionism and overweening pride.

[Tengu_temp]

The sole purpose of a video game is providing entertainment. If you had fun with a game, it fulfilled its purpose. Objective quality doesn't mean jack sh*t. And everything will have some people saying it's awesome and some people saying it sucks, no exceptions.

Also, you should find reviewers whose views on various games have been consistent with yours, and then see what they think about various games before you buy them. Or, you know, play the demo. They still make those things, do they?

[warty goblin]

Because I'm autistic and have a deep and abiding fear that that autism disconnects me from reality in such a way that I make incredibly bad decisions about how and why I spend my money. That if I make my decisions in a vacuum, using only my opinions, I'll make mistakes, which aggravates my perfectionism and overweening pride.

This is a case where you don't have to worry about that.

1) There is no objective videogame reality. It's all just people talking about what they do or do not like, with various degrees of hyperbole.

2) Given that, the only 'mistake' is purchasing a game you don't personally like.

3) Which will happen whether you heed whatever the current internet 'wisdom' is or not. Unless you have tastes and opinions entirely through message board osmosis, you will like games most people hate, and hate games most people like.

4) So ignore what most people or everybody is saying. Listen to what people who, in your experience, have the same taste as you are saying. You'll still occasionally buy a turd, because sometimes turds come in pretty wrapping paper, but it's an informed decision.

5) If you have good reason to believe you'll like a game, buying that game does not do bad things to your finances, and the game turns out to be bad, you haven't done anything wrong. You made the best guess you could based on the evidence available at the time, and guessed wrong. Predictions are hard, particularly about the future.

6) Which means that really the only mistake you can make is buying a game you don't like when you don't think you'll like it. So don't do that. Fortunately this one's pretty easy to avoid, because generally you know what you're thinking when you plunk down the money.

[Remmirath]

People are always going to like different things, and different things are important to them when judging whether a game is good or bad. I would say the only sane thing to do is to play the games you like, not play the ones you don't like, and at least try not to worry about what other people think of them (this part is very easy for me, but apparently less so for others). People's ranting about games on the internet is only useful or relevant inasmuch as it may tell you about certain features of the game which you can assess yourself.

That said, of the games that you've mentioned, I personally would say that all of them do have some flaws. This does not mean that they're bad, and if you enjoy them despite (or even because of) what I consider to be flaws, then that just means that you don't consider those things to be flaws and I do.

I have not played Mass Effect 3, but I know enough about it to know that all of the many problems I had with Mass Effect 2 are even more present in it, and so I've no doubt I wouldn't like it. Not because of the story, or how they handled the ending or any of that, but because I didn't find the combat in Mass Effect 2 enjoyable and I can't stand it when my character starts saying all sorts of things I didn't want them to say. I expect that, much like Mass Effect 2, it's a good game that is simply not of the sort I enjoy. I find this unfortunate, because I did actually enjoy the original Mass Effect despite its one major and crippling flaw (to be touched on below), but it's clearly not a game for me.

Dragon Age II was a game that I did enjoy playing through once, but would not be able to play through again. I loathe BioWare's decision to go to voiced PCs. I consider it by far the worst decision one could make in designing an RPG. I also disliked the combat in Dragon Age II intensely, which was a result of all the changes they made from Origins (as I actually rather enjoyed the combat in Origins). I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bad game, although there were some things I would consider objectively bad (all the reused areas, if nothing else), but to me it was not a good one.

As for Rome II, I'm enjoying it. There are some things that I don't like. The objective point mechanic in non-city battles bothers me; it doesn't make sense, and it can cause very annoying situations. There have been some AI issues and bugs, but I expect that. I wish that cities could be traded back and forth in diplomacy still, because that caused some strange and awkward maneuvers in a multiplayer game for me. I wish the AI was more intelligent. There are also some things I like, army legacies and that sort of thing. I definitely like it more than I liked Empire (though that could have something to do with my general dislike of ranged units and especially guns), and less than Medieval II, which is my favourite.

I don't like or use strategy guides, as I always feel somewhat annoyed if I haven't figured something out all on my own, so I haven't run into that as a problem. I do find it a bit annoying when people go around shouting that some game or other is awful without explaining why they think so. If they explain why, it could either warn me of something that I also would not like, or sometimes let me know that there's a feature of the game that I actually like quite a bit that many people apparently don't.

Basically, so long as you're getting the games to enjoy them and you enjoy them I wouldn't worry about it. Buying games from a developer who used to make games you like even though you know you don't like them any more simply out of loyalty is probably foolish, but it doesn't sound as though you are doing that.

[Tanuki Tales]

Whereas I'm in the camp that would have called them massive morons for going along with all that terrible fanwank.


Yes, because the terribly written, poorly edited slop they gave us that Indoctrination theory would have explained and covered their rears over was soooooo much better.

[Tengu_temp]

The Indoctrination Theory is just generic "let's twist the game's events to give it a bad end" grimdark and/or Destroy Ending apologism (which is objectively the worst ending from the original three, though the special one introduced in the Expanded Edition is even worse). The canon ME3 endings are pretty crap, but this is crap too.

[Nerd-o-rama]

The Indoctrination Theory is just generic "let's twist the game's events to give it a bad end" grimdark and/or Destroy Ending apologism (which is objectively the worst ending from the original three, though the special one introduced in the Expanded Edition is even worse). The canon ME3 endings are pretty crap, but this is crap too.

Excuse me, but nothing is worse than Synthesis.

[Tengu_temp]

Excuse me, but nothing is worse than Synthesis.

At least it doesn't involve the genocide of a helpful alien species (and Joker's waifu). Synthesis has some pretty nasty consequences if treated in a realistic manner, but the game doesn't treat anything in a realistic manner once the Star Kid shows up and neither should you.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

See it's these kind of arguments that frustrate me. I try to play a game to its golden ending, it's best possible conclusion, and the ambiguity of Mass Effect 3's endings makes it hard to determine what that ending is. What does a moral person do in those endings? There seem to be answers for every side. Argh!

At least with most of the other quests the strategy guides are clear on what choices lead to what outcomes!:smallannoyed:

[Nerd-o-rama]

At least it doesn't involve the genocide of a helpful alien species (and Joker's waifu). Synthesis has some pretty nasty consequences if treated in a realistic manner, but the game doesn't treat anything in a realistic manner once the Star Kid shows up and neither should you.

I'm not going to derail this thread with the full rant, but accepting some friendly casualties from your Deus Ex Machina weapon is both reasonable for someone in Shepard's position and consistent with how the series presents a "Renegade" outlook. Plus, if you didn't use a strategy guide there's a good chance Shepard already had to choose between the geth and the quarians. If you chose the quarians before...

Synthesis, meanwhile, has the triple detriments of being horrifyingly disturbing in concept, following the Plan B of the guy whose first plan was Reapers, and making no ****ing sense whatsoever


See it's these kind of arguments that frustrate me. I try to play a game to its golden ending, it's best possible conclusion, and the ambiguity of Mass Effect 3's endings makes it hard to determine what that ending is. What does a moral person do in those endings? There seem to be answers for every side. Argh!

At least with most of the other quests the strategy guides are clear on what choices lead to what outcomes!:smallannoyed:

I'm not going to defend the specifics of Mass Effect 3's endings, but the fact of the matter is, sometimes there isn't a happy ending for everybody. In real life, that's usually the case, and I applaud art that attempts to reflect that part of life. Mass Effect 3 just did a godawfully ham-handed job at it.

[Tengu_temp]

What Nerdo said is true, but actually, ME3 has an objectively best ending, and that's Madoka Control Ending. Unless your Shep was a jerk, but something tells me you played this game as pure Paragon anyway.

Also, I will now pat myself on the back now for getting the good endings for all the big ME3 conflicts without having to use any kind of walkthrough or anything.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Actually, ME3 has an objectively best ending, and that's Madoka Control Ending. Unless your Shep was a jerk, but something tells me you played this game as pure Paragon.

Control, while the only choice I find palatable personally, does have the flaw that there's no reason to think it's not a trick in-universe. It's a leap of faith for Shepard both in herself and that the glitchy myopic moron who started this whole mess is telling the truth.

I like that there's no perfect ending. I just wish the endings we had were decently written.

[Tengu_temp]

Which ending doesn't have that flaw, though? And why did this become a ME3 thread?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Which ending doesn't have that flaw, though? And why did this become a ME3 thread?

Destroy is straightforward enough that being a trap would require Shepard's entire perception of the situation to be off and layers of reverse psychology I don't think Starkid is capable of, but that's just my personal assessment.

And it's because we're on the internet. Everything becomes an ME3 ending thread eventually.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hey, if you have high enough military power, is the only effect of the Destruction choice the destruction of the Reapers?

That strikes me as the best ending, then, since it doesn't really require any leaps of faith (well, no more than Synthesis at least)... and according to IGN's site, if you have enough military power, Shepard even survives.

Is there any reason to choose Synthesis? Does Star Kid try to convince you that's the best ending?

[Tengu_temp]

Hey, if you have high enough military power, is the only effect of the Destruction choice the destruction of the Reapers?


No. It always destroys all robotic life.



And it's because we're on the internet. Everything becomes an ME3 ending thread eventually.

That is true.

As last ME-related thing, I'll say: I think Jennifer Hale's performance is overrated, and Mark Meer's is underrated. The latter has some cool moments where his stoic delivery really works, while the former seems to operate in a Tired Sarcasm mode by default that can get tiring on you as well sometimes. Though she's still a better voice than him overall. Just not by as much as people think.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Will Rome II get better? I want to enjoy it, but I feel like I'm going to keep losing at it until there's some sufficiently researched guides on the internet.

[Tanuki Tales]

The Indoctrination Theory is just generic "let's twist the game's events to give it a bad end" grimdark and/or Destroy Ending apologism (which is objectively the worst ending from the original three, though the special one introduced in the Expanded Edition is even worse). The canon ME3 endings are pretty crap, but this is crap too.

Bad ending?

The whole point of Indoctrination Theory is that Shepard was unconscious and none of what happened after Harbinger's beam spam was real. That left huge room for a DCL to give us a real ending that was complete nonsensical crap.

Edit:

Assuming Shepard didn't give in to the Indoctrination.

[Tengu_temp]

Bad ending?

The whole point of Indoctrination Theory is that Shepard was unconscious and none of what happened after Harbinger's beam spam was real. That left huge room for a DCL to give us a real ending that was complete nonsensical crap.

Edit:

Assuming Shepard didn't give in to the Indoctrination.

So it's typical "I didn't like the ending, I'll write my own one" fanfiction then. Granted, ME3 just invites those to happen, but still.


Will Rome II get better? I want to enjoy it, but I feel like I'm going to keep losing at it until there's some sufficiently researched guides on the internet.

They will patch it all up eventually, I bet. How long will it take, no idea.

Do you really need a guide though? Just start at the lowest difficulty level and get up from there when you feel you're good enough.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Bad ending?

The whole point of Indoctrination Theory is that Shepard was unconscious and none of what happened after Harbinger's beam spam was real. That left huge room for a DCL to give us a real ending that was complete nonsensical crap.

Edit:

Assuming Shepard didn't give in to the Indoctrination.

I never watched the hour and a half documentary, but I assumed the climax of the Indoctrination Theory was "oops, Shepard just did the Reapers' dirty work and blew everything up like a tool." Because that's the logical conclusion.

If you wanted an all-just-a-dream copout you could have just said so.

[Tanuki Tales]

If you wanted an all-just-a-dream copout you could have just said so.

See, I'd make some kind of response to this, but you already admitted you didn't watch the entire video and thus don't know the actual meaning of what the Indoctrination theory ending meant.

Edit:

I'm dropping the ME3 conversation here though, because:

A. It is derailing the thread.

B. I've had more than my fill of being in a debate against both Nerd and Tengu for the time being.

[Nerd-o-rama]

See, I'd make some kind of response to this, but you already admitted you didn't watch the entire video and thus don't know the actual meaning of what the Indoctrination theory ending meant.

Better writers than Bioware have resorted to dreams or hallucinations for a retcon, but it's never really come off well for any of them.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

So it's typical "I didn't like the ending, I'll write my own one" fanfiction then. Granted, ME3 just invites those to happen, but still.



They will patch it all up eventually, I bet. How long will it take, no idea.

Do you really need a guide though? Just start at the lowest difficulty level and get up from there when you feel you're good enough.
Whenever I've tried, I always find myself heavily in debt with constantly rebelling cities and super-powerful enemies kicking down my door. If I don't have at least some Opening Moves (a style of strategy guide that covers specific troop movements, construction choices and diplomatic maneuvers for the first few turns of the campaign, anywhere from seven to ten turns, to achieve a specific starting position and a solid economic footing for future expansion) I'm floundering aimlessly.

And I'm shamefully indecisive and wishy-washy, constantly doubting and second-guessing my decisions and living in constant fear of making mistakes, so a strategy guide acts as a kind of security blanket for me.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Whenever I've tried, I always find myself heavily in debt with constantly rebelling cities and super-powerful enemies kicking down my door. If I don't have at least some Opening Moves (a style of strategy guide that covers specific troop movements, construction choices and diplomatic maneuvers for the first few turns of the campaign, anywhere from seven to ten turns, to achieve a specific starting position and a solid economic footing for future expansion) I'm floundering aimlessly.

And I'm shamefully indecisive and wishy-washy, constantly doubting and second-guessing my decisions and living in constant fear of making mistakes, so a strategy guide acts as a kind of security blanket for me.

Maybe strategy isn't for you? I'm this way when it comes to RPGs like Dragon Age and Planescape: Torment (but I will play Persona 4! Someday!).

[Nerd-o-rama]

Maybe strategy isn't for you? I'm this way when it comes to RPGs like Dragon Age and Planescape: Torment (but I will play Persona 4! Someday!).

I'm having to ween myself off of keeping my eyes glued to strategy guides myself; a process that's been ongoing for years ever since I realized I was missing the enjoyment of the game because I had to keep my attention divided. I've just always been a completionist, so I hate the idea that I've missed something...

Meanwhile I don't even bother with grand strategy because I don't have the attention for detail. I tend to quit Civ games when I get more than 10-12 cities because of the information overload.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Nerd-o-rama, I'm the exact same way. In fact, my brother and I made a pass-time out of it. My brother would be the one actually playing the game, while I read instructions from the guide to guide him through it.

Had we thought to record these and post them on YouTube, we'd probably be credited with inventing the concept of the Let's Play. :smalltongue:

I like strategy games because of the thrill of conquest and construction, almost like a role-playing game on a societal level as opposed to a personal one. I like the feeling of satisfaction when I take over the world or annihilate one of my opposing factions. It started with Age of Empires, but I sort of graduated to Total War because it felt better than the arcadey way Age of Empires treats stuff. I like Total War because it's almost like a balance between the relative ease of an Age of Empires game and the nigh-inaccessable difficulty of Crusader Kings II. Age of Empires is all about fighting individual battles, taking into account the terrain and resource management to field armies, but the politics are limited to "Kill all the guys in red and destroy all their buildings." Crusader Kings is about world-scale politics, managing a dynasty and forging alliances and assassination schemes, but battle is very much a numbers game with that, evidenced by how armies are just individual armies standing on territories like chess pieces. Total War has both.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nerd-o-rama, I'm the exact same way. In fact, my brother and I made a pass-time out of it. My brother would be the one actually playing the game, while I read instructions from the guide to guide him through it.

Had we thought to record these and post them on YouTube, we'd probably be credited with inventing the concept of the Let's Play. :smalltongue:

I like strategy games because of the thrill of conquest and construction, almost like a role-playing game on a societal level as opposed to a personal one. I like the feeling of satisfaction when I take over the world or annihilate one of my opposing factions. It started with Age of Empires, but I sort of graduated to Total War because it felt better than the arcadey way Age of Empires treats stuff. I like Total War because it's almost like a balance between the relative ease of an Age of Empires game and the nigh-inaccessable difficulty of Crusader Kings II.

I skipped Total War and went straight from Starcraft to Crusader Kings II.

Now I need to get EUIV and whatever the current Victoria is...

[Psyren]

Yes, because the terribly written, poorly edited slop they gave us that Indoctrination theory would have explained and covered their rears over was soooooo much better.

Better than terrible fanwank? Absolutely.


Excuse me, but nothing is worse than Synthesis.

Let's not start this again :smallsigh:

[Nerd-o-rama]

Better than terrible fanwank? Absolutely.



Let's not start this again :smallsigh:

The endings might suck, but by God they do get people to talk about them.

[Zevox]

The sole purpose of a video game is providing entertainment. If you had fun with a game, it fulfilled its purpose.
This is the number 1 thing you really need to keep in mind here, Zousha. Gaming is just a pastime, a form of entertainment. The only thing that matters is that you enjoy yourself doing it. The only way you can be doing it wrong is if you keep playing something you don't enjoy. That is really all there is to it.


And why did this become a ME3 thread?
Because it was one of the two most prominent examples Zousha used in the first post.


Yes, because the terribly written, poorly edited slop they gave us that Indoctrination theory would have explained and covered their rears over was soooooo much better.
Actually, yes. Still bad, but at least there are interesting ideas present in it, if very poorly executed and mingled with a lot of bad ones. I cannot say even that much for the Indoctrination Theory.


See it's these kind of arguments that frustrate me. I try to play a game to its golden ending, it's best possible conclusion, and the ambiguity of Mass Effect 3's endings makes it hard to determine what that ending is. What does a moral person do in those endings? There seem to be answers for every side. Argh!
That is perhaps the closest thing to a saving grace that ME3's ending has, in my opinion. It's perhaps the only time where Bioware crafted a genuinely difficult moral choice with no clear black-and-white answers. If it weren't also so full of plot holes and nonsense, I'd actually praise them for that.

Re: Opinions of the specific endings - Synthesis is best for me. Ends the Reaper threat without killing anyone or taking the immense risks associated with Control. And I find it a fascinating idea, not a horrifying one at all.

Destroy was worst, because Geth genocide. Well, besides Deny, but I suspect it goes without saying that deliberately choosing to lose is the worst ending in anything.

[Tanuki Tales]

Better than terrible fanwank? Absolutely.


Yeah, terrible fanwank.

Uh huh, keep telling yourself that.

And now I'm out.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This is the number 1 thing you really need to keep in mind here, Zousha. Gaming is just a pastime, a form of entertainment. The only thing that matters is that you enjoy yourself doing it. The only way you can be doing it wrong is if you keep playing something you don't enjoy. That is really all there is to it.

I'm really finding it very difficult to enjoy them anymore. I have a mental checklist of games I want to playthrough, and the process has become very mechanical as I'm more focused on "finishing" the games than I am in the experience of playing them. I blame Mass Effect and Dragon Age's save-game features, as they necessitate playing the prior games to achieve the best outcomes in the final one.



Actually, yes. Still bad, but at least there are interesting ideas present in it, if very poorly executed and mingled with a lot of bad ones. I cannot say even that much for the Indoctrination Theory.
I myself always felt like proponents of the Indoctrination Theory were kind of smug, presenting a sort of "We know better than the developers" mentality that only became more pronounced when it was debunked, that it was less outrage at the game's ending and more resenting that their pet theory was challenged. I never liked the theory personally.

That is perhaps the closest thing to a saving grace that ME3's ending has, in my opinion. It's perhaps the only time where Bioware crafted a genuinely difficult moral choice with no clear black-and-white answers. If it weren't also so full of plot holes and nonsense, I'd actually praise them for that.
And that's a place where we differ. Mentally I'm more comfortable with black-and-white, with binary interpretations of things, part of the whole Autism thing. It's part of how I view the world. I know it's irrational. I know it's not how the world actually works. But it's easier for me, mentally, to think I'm either passing or failing, doing my job perfectly or about to be fired, an angel or a devil.

Re: Opinions of the specific endings - Synthesis is best for me. Ends the Reaper threat without killing anyone or taking the immense risks associated with Control. And I find it a fascinating idea, not a horrifying one at all.

Destroy was worst, because Geth genocide. Well, besides Deny, but I suspect it goes without saying that deliberately choosing to lose is the worst ending in anything.
I don't have a favorite because I have yet to actually PLAY Mass Effect 3. I still have to play through 1 and 2 to get there! And before you say "download a save-game," no. I won't do that. I want to experience the whole saga, start to finish, in its entirety. I haven't watched Star Wars in years because I'm waiting for a chance when my friends and I have a few days to watch all six movies in chronological order in a straight shot.

[Zevox]

I'm really finding it very difficult to enjoy them anymore. I have a mental checklist of games I want to playthrough, and the process has become very mechanical as I'm more focused on "finishing" the games than I am in the experience of playing them. I blame Mass Effect and Dragon Age's save-game features, as they necessitate playing the prior games to achieve the best outcomes in the final one.
Well, then perhaps you should consider stopping playing those games. What's the point if you're not enjoying them, after all?


I don't have a favorite because I have yet to actually PLAY Mass Effect 3. I still have to play through 1 and 2 to get there!
:smallconfused: Wait, you haven't even played the series? At all? But you were active in the threads for it. You've repeatedly referred to ME3 as an example game you enjoy that others heavily criticize. How exactly can you know you enjoy it if you haven't played it?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Well, then perhaps you should consider stopping playing those games. What's the point if you're not enjoying them, after all?
Justifying the purchase to myself? Completing the mental checklist? It's becoming a problem with everything I do, not just playing games. Reading books, watching movies. Everything just feels like I'm just doing it mechanically and not really enjoying it because I get so stressed about looking good at one job and feel so ashamed about being fired from my other one!

:smallconfused: Wait, you haven't even played the series? At all? But you were active in the threads for it. You've repeatedly referred to ME3 as an example game you enjoy that others heavily criticize. How exactly can you know you enjoy it if you haven't played it?
I played through Mass Effects 1 and 2, and Mass Effect 3's demo, and watched the cutscenes for 3 on YouTube. I at least try to watch the ending of a game with a definite story before I purchase it. It's easier to watch a 3-minute, 12-second video to know whether or not I'll get excited over it or not than to go into it blind. It's part of why Elder Scrolls games are sort of love/hate for me. They're pretty big, but you never feel "done."

[stabbybelkar]

I'm not going to derail this thread with the full rant, but accepting some friendly casualties from your Deus Ex Machina weapon is both reasonable for someone in Shepard's position and consistent with how the series presents a "Renegade" outlook. Plus, if you didn't use a strategy guide there's a good chance Shepard already had to choose between the geth and the quarians. If you chose the quarians before...

Synthesis, meanwhile, has the triple detriments of being horrifyingly disturbing in concept, following the Plan B of the guy whose first plan was Reapers, and making no ****ing sense whatsoever



I'm not going to defend the specifics of Mass Effect 3's endings, but the fact of the matter is, sometimes there isn't a happy ending for everybody. In real life, that's usually the case, and I applaud art that attempts to reflect that part of life. Mass Effect 3 just did a godawfully ham-handed job at it.

Er...what? Now admittedly, my views are probably the result of my transhumanist leanings combined with my belief that the Citadel were unjustified in banning AIs, but, from what I saw in my playthrough of ME3, Synthesis was by far and away the BEST ending. Basically, from what I saw, the Synthesis ending essentially resulted in a galaxy-wide version of a Technological Singularity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSingularity) and compleately eliminating the conflict between organics and AIs as a direct result.

Admittedly, there is the issue of it being forced on everyone without their consent, but when compared to Control, which has you flat out brainwash and enslave the Reapers, (not that they don't deserve it mind you, but they ARE still sentient beings, making it just as much a moral issue as Synthesis, and I have seen WAY too much Sci-Fi to NOT see Control going horribly wrong in some way) and Destroy, which has you flat out commit genocide against the Geth (Tali may be my waifu, but I always end up saving the Geth if given a choice, since every single time we hear of the Quarians being in trouble, it has ALWAYS been caused by the Quarians being paranoid idiots) which is worse on so many levels of magnitude, that only my aptly named Jacka** Shepard ever chose that option.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

And what the heck is a waifu?! I've seen the term bandied about the internet in regards to female characters of various games, movies and television shows, but have no idea what it means!

[Giggling Ghast]

Depends on the game. Saying you liked Dragon Age II is not bad, but saying you loved Ride to Hell: Retribution is grounds for a commital. And not to a nice mental hospital, but one of the bad ones that show up in survival horror games where naked inmates chase you around with machetes with the intent of molesting your corpse.

[Zevox]

And what the heck is a waifu?! I've seen the term bandied about the internet in regards to female characters of various games, movies and television shows, but have no idea what it means!
I believe it's some kind of faux-Japanese for "wife." In other words, a person's pick for romance option from the game in question.

[Manticoran]

Gotta agree, Synthesis was my favorite ending by far. >.> I really didn't understand what was remotely wrong with it. Robots are cool, people are cool, robot people are even cooler.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I've brought this up before, but it just feels like I have too many games to play and not enough time to play them all. So I feel overwhelmed by the backlog. And then I see all the negative reviews and wonder if it's worth it, or if I should continue feeling bad about spending so much money on something not related to college debt. :smallfrown:

[Tavar]

Admittedly, there is the issue of it being forced on everyone without their consent, but when compared to Control, which has you flat out brainwash and enslave the Reapers, (not that they don't deserve it mind you, but they ARE still sentient beings, making it just as much a moral issue as Synthesis, and I have seen WAY too much Sci-Fi to NOT see Control going horribly wrong in some way)
This is largely, the crux of the issues. Everyone's brain is rewritten according to one's being desire. A being proven to be an idiot and monster(hey, we want to stop the conflict between synthetics and organics, so we'll just have a group of synthetics have other synthetics hack the ones you make to turn the against you, and use that as justification for then wiping out organics. THIS IS THE BEST PLAN!!!!@@!@!!@@!@!!@!!111211212).

Control would tap into this as well, but honestly, I can't really find it in my to feel sympathy for the Reapers. There are no-Reaper non-combatants, and they're entire purpose is to wipe out organic and synthetic species that are advanced enough. At that point, you really can't play the "but they have rights too" card. Armies, especially one's being used offensively against you with no cause on your side, and ones that specifically target civilian populations, are fair game. Turning them into glorified drones? Harsh, and if you have to do it you should probably send them into the nearest star as soon as possible, but I don't really find it more troubling than, say, killing an enemy soldier.

Now, destroy has problems, the issue is that it seems the most...sensible option, as both Control and Synthesis seem pants on head retarded for you to do, given what we know of the Reapers. The losses from it are horrific, but I'd say it's actually more moral than Synthesis(No Free will, Yay) and less of a risk than Control would seem.

[Psyren]

Justifying the purchase to myself? Completing the mental checklist? It's becoming a problem with everything I do, not just playing games. Reading books, watching movies. Everything just feels like I'm just doing it mechanically and not really enjoying it because I get so stressed about looking good at one job and feel so ashamed about being fired from my other one!

It sounds like you have a hell of a lot more going on than video games or random people on a messageboard can solve. Maybe seek counseling? Serious suggestion.



Now, destroy has problems, the issue is that it seems the most...sensible option, as both Control and Synthesis seem pants on head retarded for you to do, given what we know of the Reapers. The losses from it are horrific, but I'd say it's actually more moral than Synthesis(No Free will, Yay) and less of a risk than Control would seem.

I saw plenty of free will in the green slides.
And Destroy is the "retarded" choice for me. Yeah, let's add "erased all synthetic life" to our historical archives for the next synthetic race we inevitably create to read, that'll really convince them not to come into conflict with organics...

[TaRix]

You are allowed to enjoy the things you enjoy and still recognize that those things are bad. I played a terrible game whose name I have long since forgotten. Its mechanic was magic the gathering + monopoly. Your characters battled on a monopoly bored. You wandered around this board placing monsters from your deck on tiles. You could upgrade the tiles to give your creatures stat boosts. When the other guy landed on the tile he had to fight your monster with stuff from his deck. If he won he got the tile and killed your monster. If he lost he had to pay out on your hotel.

The game was long, grindy, the story was incomprehensible. It was pretty terrible. I had a lot of fun playing it and I'd never recommend it to anyone ever.

You mean Culdcept? I liked that game, too. Guess it's more of a mashup of Magic and whatever Fortune Street's based on (and some other titles' minimodes) but just about everyone knows Monopoly. There was a second one for Xbox that I never saw, but apparently never made it stateside after that.

[warty goblin]

Will Rome II get better? I want to enjoy it, but I feel like I'm going to keep losing at it until there's some sufficiently researched guides on the internet.
It's a strategy game. Getting kicked repeatedly in the ribs is how a person learns. And if you really need a guide to have fun, they're out there (http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/75372-Guide-to-the-Guides-(Total-War-Rome-II)?p=628558#post628558). Google is your friend here.


I never watched the hour and a half documentary, but I assumed the climax of the Indoctrination Theory was "oops, Shepard just did the Reapers' dirty work and blew everything up like a tool." Because that's the logical conclusion.

There's an hour and a half long documentary? That's terrifying.

Justifying the purchase to myself? Completing the mental checklist? It's becoming a problem with everything I do, not just playing games. Reading books, watching movies. Everything just feels like I'm just doing it mechanically and not really enjoying it because I get so stressed about looking good at one job and feel so ashamed about being fired from my other one!


Can you look good at a job when you're not at the job? Probably not, so don't worry about it when you aren't working. If you're showing up to work prepared, engaged, ready and willing to get the job done, you're doing fine. If nothing else, somebody will probably tell you if you aren't doing well.

And getting fired sucks. It's also one of those things that happens to pretty much everybody. It's nothing to be ashamed of, just an event to learn and move on from.

As for not enjoying games; if you don't enjoy 'em, don't play 'em. It's not like playings games is a tremendously worthwhile endeavor; about all they can do for a person is bring a bit of enjoyment. They're strictly a leisure activity; a hobby. And in spite of the yammering of videogames journalism, not really that creative, artful or meaningful of one either, for the most part. If you aren't getting some enjoyment out of them, you're wasting your time. And wasting all the time in the world won't unspend that $60. Wasting time will squander hours you could spend on something you do find enjoyable though.

If you enjoy playing games, and they aren't interfering with the rest of your life, play games. If you think you'll like a game and can afford it, buy it. Maybe you will enjoy it, maybe you won't. If you can't handle not liking it, don't buy it. The absolute worst thing that can happen is that you miss out on an otherwise enjoyable way to kill a few tens of hours. This doesn't strike me as a loss worthy of regret. Neither does whatever you spend on a game you thought you would like, and turn out not to. Life is full of uncertainties and risks; that's one of the easy little ones, all things considered.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

It sounds like you have a hell of a lot more going on than video games or random people on a messageboard can solve. Maybe seek counseling? Serious suggestion.
I can't afford counseling anymore! I spent it on video games and a new computer to play them on! :smallmad:

[Squark]

Synthesis leaves free will intact... but you're inducing a life altering change into every life-form in the galaxy. That's the issue people have with it. I think.

RE: The Indoctrination Hypothesis*: My issue with it is that people drastically underestimate the amount of the game you have to throw out. Remember, Vengeance could detect Indoctrination- Which means either Shepherd isn't indoctrinated, or that everything from around Priority: Thessia onwards is at least partly warped by indoctrination. And messing with the player's view of the video game's "reality" is pretty much limited to Horror games, because it just doesn't work in other narratives.




*It's not a theory, people. Hell, it's not even a hypothesis anymore, considering it's been debunked.

[Tavar]

I saw plenty of free will in the green slides.
And Destroy is the "retarded" choice for me. Yeah, let's add "erased all synthetic life" to our historical archives for the next synthetic race we inevitably create to read, that'll really convince them not to come into conflict with organics...
The Starkid pretty explicitly states it's going to make conflict between synthetics and organics impossible. So either it's lying about the techno-magic-bull, or it's, you know, breaking free will(hint, to have free will, you kinda need to be able to make choices).

As for destroy, I feel it could certainly be worked into some sort of Heroic Sacrifice. Especially since Synthetics aren't exactly like us, and destroying all of them would be a pretty tall order.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

It's a strategy game. Getting kicked repeatedly in the ribs is how a person learns. And if you really need a guide to have fun, they're out there (http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/75372-Guide-to-the-Guides-(Total-War-Rome-II)?p=628558#post628558). Google is your friend here.
I've seen those guides, they're incomplete!

Can you look good at a job when you're not at the job? Probably not, so don't worry about it when you aren't working. If you're showing up to work prepared, engaged, ready and willing to get the job done, you're doing fine. If nothing else, somebody will probably tell you if you aren't doing well.
It's different for me as an autistic person. Social behavior is a "mask" I have to put on, a role I have to play in real life for people to be willing to engage with me in conversation or transactions (I'm behind a cash register most of the time). But I'm constantly worried because we get so busy and we're so short of staff that I end up falling behind on tasks, and then I feel like I look bad to the rest of the team, and make the rest of the team look bad for my failure to get stuff done on time. They're constantly reassuring me that's the case, but I don't know if they're being honest with me or if they're just being polite to me in public and talking about me behind my back! At least, that's what my mother claims people do at her job (she's an occupational therapist with our local school district).

And getting fired sucks. It's also one of those things that happens to pretty much everybody. It's nothing to be ashamed of, just an event to learn and move on from.
This job was different! My student loans were deferred while I was with the organization and if I completed my year with them I'd recieve a $5,500 award payment to my college loans. Because I didn't meet their standards consistently enough I was "exited for cause" after about nine months or so, meaning I blew the award and missed the opportunity to get my loans down so I can move on with my life! And my mother was furious when she found out, because she let me use her classroom for the job and my firing was like a personal slap in the face to her (and why she believes people are talking about her behind her back, because my firing made her look bad). Plus, it's like video games are an embarassment in my family. I'm the only one who plays them with any regularity or spends much money on them. My mom looks on them as a waste of time when I could be cleaning the house, making myself useful (though she thinks nothing of passing the time playing Candy Crush on her iPhone, the hypocrite!). My dad doesn't really care one way or another. My brother got me into them, but now he feels playing his bagpipes and drinking expensive Irish and Scottish beers are more productive things to do with his time. My sister's always busy hanging out with her friends or starring in a play or something. And my other brother openly mocks me for playing video games (and he's one to talk, with hair longer than my sisters and clothes that stopped being popular back in the late 80's, and he's the YOUNGEST in the family, I was at least BORN in 1988!).

As for not enjoying games; if you don't enjoy 'em, don't play 'em. It's not like playings games is a tremendously worthwhile endeavor; about all they can do for a person is bring a bit of enjoyment. They're strictly a leisure activity; a hobby. And in spite of the yammering of videogames journalism, not really that creative, artful or meaningful of one either, for the most part. If you aren't getting some enjoyment out of them, you're wasting your time. And wasting all the time in the world won't unspend that $60. Wasting time will squander hours you could spend on something you do find enjoyable though.
That's just it! NOTHING seems enjoyable anymore! I look at that mountain of college debt and the tarnished reputation of my family and myself, and I feel like I not only wasted my time in the now, but my entire life working towards that degree I can no longer afford to deal with and that I'm not even using in my current job!

If you enjoy playing games, and they aren't interfering with the rest of your life, play games. If you think you'll like a game and can afford it, buy it. Maybe you will enjoy it, maybe you won't. If you can't handle not liking it, don't buy it. The absolute worst thing that can happen is that you miss out on an otherwise enjoyable way to kill a few tens of hours. This doesn't strike me as a loss worthy of regret. Neither does whatever you spend on a game you thought you would like, and turn out not to. Life is full of uncertainties and risks; that's one of the easy little ones, all things considered.
I just have an intense amount of guilt at enjoying a hobby my entire family considers a waste of time and money, and having nothing to show for it because my interest petered out and I stopped playing. If I at least COMPLETE the game, then the money wasn't wasted. I got the experience I payed for. I wouldn't pay for a ticket at a movie theater and walk out in the middle of the movie!

[Psyren]

I can't afford counseling anymore! I spent it on video games and a new computer to play them on! :smallmad:

My suggestion then is to unplug for a bit. If games aren't fun anymore, try something else - head to your local library and try some books, whether fiction or something like crafts, music, cooking, even meditation. Perhaps there's another hobby that will fit you better, at least for now, and the games and computer will be there whenever you decide to go back.

Also, consider going for a run - getting active releases endorphins. Perhaps a couple of laps at your local Y?


The Starkid pretty explicitly states it's going to make conflict between synthetics and organics impossible.

No, he never says that. What he says is that the cycle will end, which is true. There'll be no reason for us to make synthetics that will surpass us when we become synthesized ourselves.

Put another way - if you can perfectly do complex mathematical equations in your head, why would you need a TI-83? Why would you need Excel? And why would you need an AI to come up with targeting solutions for you etc?

So no, loss of free will has nothing to do with it and was stated by no one. Conflict is still very much possible - it would simply no longer be the one-sided "we hate machines because we don't understand them/we have to destroy them before they subvert all of our technology" kinds of conflict that result in one side or the other (usually their side) being removed entirely.



As for destroy, I feel it could certainly be worked into some sort of Heroic Sacrifice. Especially since Synthetics aren't exactly like us, and destroying all of them would be a pretty tall order.

That's pretty clearly what happens, but it doesn't matter - because in our current, barbaric, woefully inadequate fleshy states we need them. So wiping them all out is a stopgap, nothing more. There will be more TIMs, more Schells, more Daro'Xens to fill the gap soon enough. "Soon your children will create synthetics, and the Chaos will come back."

[Archpaladin Zousha]

My suggestion then is to unplug for a bit. If games aren't fun anymore, try something else - head to your local library and try some books, whether fiction or something like crafts, music, cooking, even meditation. Perhaps there's another hobby that will fit you better, at least for now, and the games and computer will be there whenever you decide to go back.

Also, consider going for a run - getting active releases endorphins. Perhaps a couple of laps at your local Y?
I just said everything feels like it's not fun. Reading is boring, crafts and cooking make too much of a mess that I don't wanna clean up, I haven't played my violin in over 4 years, and I have no effective way to tune it, and can't afford lessons anymore, and meditation just makes me fall asleep.

And I can't get to my local Y on my own. I don't have a driver's license!

Plus, I can really only get any consistent social interaction on the internet anymore, and I'm trying to keep up with several Play-by-Post games I'm involved in because I can't drive to a game store to play D&D or Pathfinder for real!

[Zevox]

The Starkid pretty explicitly states it's going to make conflict between synthetics and organics impossible. So either it's lying about the techno-magic-bull, or it's, you know, breaking free will(hint, to have free will, you kinda need to be able to make choices).
The Catalyst believes that Synthesis will prevent conflict between organics and synthetics. But the Catalyst also believes that such conflict is inevitable and the product of the two merely existing at the same time. Its judgment on the matter is, to say the least, suspect. Not to mention it's a poorly-written plot device whose every other sentence is full of logical failings, so trying to extrapolate hidden meanings from what it says is probably not the best idea.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm sorry for my last post. I started rambling and spewed my emotional baggage all over this thread. It looks like a stupid cry for attention. Sorry for wasting your time. :smallfrown:

[Avilan the Grey]

I love ME3, as a majority of players did. To be fair, I never played the original ending, but the combination of Leviathan and the EC makes the ending Better Than Ok (tm).

(Oh and Indoctrination Theory? it's a pathetic fanwank.)

As for enjoying games people hate... Don't think I have ever done that, if you don't count me trying to defend ME2 and FO3 Shamus Young's blog, where everybody hates those two games and worship ME1.

I am more inclined to do the opposite, that is hate games "everybody" loves.

[Seatbelt]

You mean Culdcept? I liked that game, too. Guess it's more of a mashup of Magic and whatever Fortune Street's based on (and some other titles' minimodes) but just about everyone knows Monopoly. There was a second one for Xbox that I never saw, but apparently never made it stateside after that.

Yes! Culdcept Saga. My friend loved the trill of opening boosters. So he would load up the "multiplayer" and grind for packs. He managed to make a deck that could beat the best scenario for prizes in something like 30 seconds? This was years and years ago now. I forget.

But yeah. I had sweet decks going pretty early on because of that. Probably wouldn't have kept playing if it weren't for him.

[Seatbelt]

I'm sorry for my last post. I started rambling and spewed my emotional baggage all over this thread. It looks like a stupid cry for attention. Sorry for wasting your time. :smallfrown:

Nah dude. Everyone's gotta vent some time. As long as you don't start every conversation ever with "Hi, my name is Zousha and here is all my baggage" then whatever. nbd.

:)

I was going to suggest trying out your FLGS for fun and friendship. But you said that's not an option. So... :(

[factotum]

Answering the original question (and ignoring the massive ME3 derailment): no, it's not weird or strange to enjoy things that a majority of people don't. Heck, this is the Internet, you can't even tell if the opinions you see on it are actually majority opinions or just being posted by the noisiest people! Case in point would be the GTA series--it seems to be generally acknowledged that Vice City was the best game in the series (at least until GTA5 came along), but I didn't like it at all. Didn't like the largely flat and boring city layout, didn't like the arrogant berk I was being forced to play, and the less said about the helicopter and plane controls, the better.

Just to add to the ME derailment, though, the reason people hated the ending in the first place was because each of the three original endings were essentially the same as each other, but with a different colour filter over the video. That was nothing short of idiotic in a series that had been priding itself on the amount of choice the players had about how to direct the story, especially when the people at Bioware had been saying that the player's decisions throughout all three games would have an important impact on the ending they got.

[Seatbelt]

Just to add to the ME derailment, though, the reason people hated the ending in the first place was because each of the three original endings were essentially the same as each other, but with a different colour filter over the video. That was nothing short of idiotic in a series that had been priding itself on the amount of choice the players had about how to direct the story, especially when the people at Bioware had been saying that the player's decisions throughout all three games would have an important impact on the ending they got.


what pissed me off about the ME3 Endings had nothing to do with the endings quality. It was perfectly acceptable RPG fluff at the end of an RPG. Like the stuff at the end of Mask of the Betrayer that was alignment based. Or at the end of Fallout 3 or any other RPG really. What pissed me off about the ME3 endings were how my choices were really just numerical values. That was dumb. If I gave the Collector Base to Cerberus I wanted that to be actually reflected in the story. Cerberus troops get a visual upgrade and are a bit tougher, or a sidequest to do something. If I killed the Rachni they should have given me a quest talking about how they had all been indoctrinated during the Krogan wars and how I'm such an ass for killing them. Or something. The way major decisions were handled was very boring. Bits of dialog change are the lowest level of effort we expect when you tell us "choices matter." They made a big deal about how our choices mattered and then gave us the lowest level of effort. So that pissed me off.

[OrcusMcP]

Fundamentally, guilty pleasures are fine. Whether it's cheap horror movies, trashy romance novels, weepy visual novels, tic-tac-toe, there are all kinds of things that people enjoy but a lot of people think are terrible.
(I'm only speaking of things of "questionable" taste and not actual terrible things that hurt people)

You only have a couple options with a guilty pleasure:

1) Be ashamed and keep it a secret. Treat it like the shameful sin you think it is. This is the option that'll cause you the most stress, so I don't recommend it.

2) Admit you like it and move on. Make the fact that you enjoy such things a non-issue. It's the course that is easiest. Most people operate at this level.

3) Embrace that you like it and deep-read why. You know it's trashy, but it's fun! Sure, the portrayals of DEMOGRAPHIC_X are problematic but you can look at it like satire! Etc. This is the most work, but the most fun. You aren't necessarily going to make your thing look better, but you'll at least get people to think about it in a new way.

[warty goblin]

I've seen those guides, they're incomplete!

The game's not been out that long, and is getting patched all the time. The guides are gonna be incomplete. If you don't want to play without a complete guide, just back burner the game for a couple months until they are done. It's not like it's going to delete itself from your hard drive or anything.


It's different for me as an autistic person. Social behavior is a "mask" I have to put on, a role I have to play in real life for people to be willing to engage with me in conversation or transactions (I'm behind a cash register most of the time). But I'm constantly worried because we get so busy and we're so short of staff that I end up falling behind on tasks, and then I feel like I look bad to the rest of the team, and make the rest of the team look bad for my failure to get stuff done on time. They're constantly reassuring me that's the case, but I don't know if they're being honest with me or if they're just being polite to me in public and talking about me behind my back! At least, that's what my mother claims people do at her job (she's an occupational therapist with our local school district).
I can't speak to being autistic. I can however assure you that a lot of people put on a mask or play a role when they go to work, particularly in the service industry. Virtually nobody is actually delighted to see a customer, but everybody pretends to be. The interaction isn't genuine, both sides know it, but life is a little more pleasant for everybody because of the lie.

And do your team mates talk about you behind your back? Probably, to exactly the extent they talk about anybody else on the team behind their back. If they're being polite and supportive to your face, accept that and continue to work hard. I guarantee you that if your work isn't up to snuff, your boss will let you know.


This job was different! My student loans were deferred while I was with the organization and if I completed my year with them I'd recieve a $5,500 award payment to my college loans. Because I didn't meet their standards consistently enough I was "exited for cause" after about nine months or so, meaning I blew the award and missed the opportunity to get my loans down so I can move on with my life! And my mother was furious when she found out, because she let me use her classroom for the job and my firing was like a personal slap in the face to her (and why she believes people are talking about her behind her back, because my firing made her look bad).
That genuinely sucks man, my sympathies. Genuine suckage happens in life though, there's no use castigating oneself for it for the rest of time. Life goes on. You've got a new job now, so work at that, and keep looking for opportunities to use your degree - if in fact using your degree is something you want to do. And your Mom is riding you way too hard on this. You were the one who lost a job, not her.


Plus, it's like video games are an embarassment in my family. I'm the only one who plays them with any regularity or spends much money on them. My mom looks on them as a waste of time when I could be cleaning the house, making myself useful (though she thinks nothing of passing the time playing Candy Crush on her iPhone, the hypocrite!). My dad doesn't really care one way or another. My brother got me into them, but now he feels playing his bagpipes and drinking expensive Irish and Scottish beers are more productive things to do with his time. My sister's always busy hanging out with her friends or starring in a play or something.
Unfortunate newsflash: videogames are a waste of time. That's their entire point; there's no point defending them on that charge. And if you aren't into them, they look incredibly stupid. I've been putting up with this crap from my parents for years now. Just ignore it.


And my other brother openly mocks me for playing video games (and he's one to talk, with hair longer than my sisters and clothes that stopped being popular back in the late 80's, and he's the YOUNGEST in the family, I was at least BORN in 1988!).
Speaking as somebody who wears his hair longer than most women, I have no idea what hairstyle has to do anything.


That's just it! NOTHING seems enjoyable anymore! I look at that mountain of college debt and the tarnished reputation of my family and myself, and I feel like I not only wasted my time in the now, but my entire life working towards that degree I can no longer afford to deal with and that I'm not even using in my current job!
You lost your first job out of college. You have a lot of college debt. Your current job doesn't use your degree. This is true for lots and lots of people. Hell, it's practically the hallmark of our generation. It's not a good situation, but again self-flagellation doesn't help it in the slightest.


I just have an intense amount of guilt at enjoying a hobby my entire family considers a waste of time and money, and having nothing to show for it because my interest petered out and I stopped playing. If I at least COMPLETE the game, then the money wasn't wasted. I got the experience I payed for. I wouldn't pay for a ticket at a movie theater and walk out in the middle of the movie!
If your interest didn't peter out and you kept playing, would you have anything more to show for the time you'd spent playing up until now? You'd have the enjoyment you got out of playing them, and that's about it. Same as if your interest is petering out. If you spend a hundred odd hours playing a game you don't like, your money is just as 'wasted' as if you don't.

And there's nothing wrong with walking out of a movie. If it's terrible, there's no reason to blow two hours of my life on it. The money is just as wasted if I stay or go, because I've spent it on unnecessary crap that doesn't even make me happy. Only question is whether to send a couple hours swirling down the drain after it.

But hey, if you can't leave yourself alone if you don't play your games, play them. Then stop beating yourself up about it, and if you aren't having fun with games and feel bad about spending money on them, don't buy any new ones.


I just said everything feels like it's not fun. Reading is boring, crafts and cooking make too much of a mess that I don't wanna clean up, I haven't played my violin in over 4 years, and I have no effective way to tune it, and can't afford lessons anymore, and meditation just makes me fall asleep.

You can buy auto-tuners for like $20. Barring that, I'd bet a local music shop would be happy to tune a violin for a small fee.

That aside, it may just be one of those periods of life when it's time to try some new stuff. It's a feature of growing up, not a bug. It doesn't even have to be dramatically new, just a bit different. Try different books, tell that lazy part of yourself that doesn't want to clean up a mess to sit down and shutup, then go and cook or whatever else seems interesting; damn the mess. Or take up knitting, it's pretty mess-free, once you get to the point of knitting gloves and sweaters and things is actually useful, and quite enjoyable. If that's insufficiently manly, try chainmail. Or running. Or anything really. Just make yourself go do stuff you don't normally do, and there's a reasonable chance that alone will make you feel better. Particularly if it's something that requires thought and attention so it pulls your mind out of itself.

Comfort zones are nice, but if one doesn't expand them occasionally, they can turn into prisons.


Plus, I can really only get any consistent social interaction on the internet anymore, and I'm trying to keep up with several Play-by-Post games I'm involved in because I can't drive to a game store to play D&D or Pathfinder for real!
You may want to try to do something about that. I'm probably going to raise some hackles with this, but I don't think pretending to be somebody else over the internet really counts. I don't know exactly what you can do, I don't know all the particulars of your situation, but there's probably something available. It may require doing something that doesn't involve dragons and orcs, but that's not a bad thing.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Er...what? Now admittedly, my views are probably the result of my transhumanist leanings combined with my belief that the Citadel were unjustified in banning AIs, but, from what I saw in my playthrough of ME3, Synthesis was by far and away the BEST ending. Basically, from what I saw, the Synthesis ending essentially resulted in a galaxy-wide version of a Technological Singularity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSingularity) and compleately eliminating the conflict between organics and AIs as a direct result.

Tavar mostly covered how I would respond to this (except I think what the glitchy VI that we call the Catalyst was attempting to say was that there will be no more organic/synthetic conflict because there will no longer be organics or synthetics and no reason for one to fear the other).

But physically altering the body and mind of every sapient intelligence in the galaxy, and a lot of other things besides, with no warning, consent, or even solid reasoning? Because the Catalyst, who has such a spotless track record of decision-making, told you it was a good idea? I'd rather just turn the game off than violate that many fictional characters, thank you.

I'm still talking about this because the alternative is playing armchair psychiatrist.

[Hunter Noventa]

Wait, Mass Effect 3 had multiple endings? This is the only one I remember... (http://threepanelsoul.com/2012/07/04/on-hard-light-ocular-constructs/)

[Winthur]

Wait, Mass Effect 3 had multiple endings?

Yes, stolen from Deus Ex. :smalltongue:


As for enjoying games people hate... Don't think I have ever done that

Skyrim

[Closet_Skeleton]

I appear to be in the really crazy minority in that I actually liked the STFU ending (never played the pre-enhanced ending) and consider it canon for my RenPar middle of the road Shep.

Rubbish that should just be moved to a real ME3 thread.


What Nerdo said is true, but actually, ME3 has an objectively best ending, and that's Madoka Control Ending. Unless your Shep was a jerk, but something tells me you played this game as pure Paragon anyway.

If your Shep was a pure Paragon, would he trust herself with that power?

Control doesn't make any more sense than Synthesis. Synthesis is nonsense space magic, but Control turns what was previously sentient cyborgs into RC drones. Its practically as much of a retcon button as Synthesis.

How many millions are you mind-wiping by turning the Reapers into your souless robot army? Those things are the only record of countless otherwise extinct species.




Is there any reason to choose Synthesis? Does Star Kid try to convince you that's the best ending?

You might be a transhumanist.

Its the most utopian ending really, because your literally creating a completely different world. Shepard came back from the dead in the second game so its only logical that he would be able to become a literal messiah in the third.

Synthesis is only abhorrent if you're seriously against changing the status quo.

The other thing about ME3 is that even the guys who kind of enjoyed it will easily be able to rant about its flaws, so that might make it appear hated by everyone when it isn't. If even a game's fans prefer to be really critical of it, its easy to get the wrong impression.


I like Total War because it's almost like a balance between the relative ease of an Age of Empires game and the nigh-inaccessable difficulty of Crusader Kings II.

CKII's difficulty is whatever you want it to be since they're no goal. If you want to conquer the whole map then its really hard and not very fun but you're not actually supposed to do that. You can load up as a count in the heartland one of the big empires and easily survive to the end and 'win' CKII. Its only 'inaccessibly difficult' if you do something deliberately nigh impossible like play a tiny Christian country surrounded by Muslims like Armenia.

It might be hard to get into, but that's not its difficulty since its only really by random chance that you can 'lose' if you start somewhere safe.


The Starkid pretty explicitly states it's going to make conflict between synthetics and organics impossible. So either it's lying about the techno-magic-bull, or it's, you know, breaking free will(hint, to have free will, you kinda need to be able to make choices).


It makes the conflict impossible by removing the distinction. Geth and Quarians will still be able to kill each other, but it won't be a synthetic/organic conflict because neither of them fit into those categories any more.

You don't destroy free will by forcing a single choice on someone. Otherwise compulsory education would have rid most of humanity of that a long time ago. Throwing someone in prison doesn't mean their free will is damaged forever and that they won't try to break out. Since you're making everyone super awesome, you're probably expanding their free will because they'll have more choices now.

All the endings are 'one person making a choice for the galaxy', choosing to not uplift everyone is just as much enforcing your will as choosing to uplift everyone. The only real argument you can make from an 'ignoring other's free will' perspective is that the alliance forces had already reached a 'destroy all the reapers' consensus so you're back-stabbing them if you don't pick Destroy, but since that consensus was reached without your information its flawed.


Yes, stolen from Deus Ex. :smalltongue:

You mean 'tapping into the same incredibly generic sci fi Zeitgeist'.

But I haven't finished Deus Ex to say that its handled better there.


Skyrim

But people like that game, so all you're really saying is 'there are people who don't like a game I enjoyed', which probably applies to every game I've played.

[Psyren]

But physically altering the body and mind of every sapient intelligence in the galaxy, and a lot of other things besides, with no warning, consent, or even solid reasoning? Because the Catalyst, who has such a spotless track record of decision-making, told you it was a good idea? I'd rather just turn the game off than violate that many fictional characters, thank you.

"Violate" is such a loaded and fallacious term. It seems to me that the only way people can even attempt to argue against this by relying on repugnance, which is just a subset of the standard appeal to emotion fallacy.



I'm still talking about this because the alternative is playing armchair psychiatrist.

Yeah >_>

[13_CBS]

The sole purpose of a video game is providing entertainment.

This was rather early in the thread, but...

Depending on your definition of art: there are a LOT of game critics and developers who would take strong issue with that statement.

On topic:

This is something I've wondered from time to time about other media. While I don't stress over the matter, I do ponder on it sometimes: when the majority of the things one enjoys is guilty-pleasure dumb stuff, does that mean one has bad tastes, and should feel ashamed about it?

[warty goblin]

This was rather early in the thread, but...

Depending on your definition of art: there are a LOT of game critics and developers who would take strong issue with that statement.

And I think they're mostly full of crap on that. Not because I don't think videogames are art, since my definition of art is along the lines of anything made or done with skill for aesthetic effect*.

However when it comes to saying things and telling stories of weight and worth (which to me is a separate concern from 'art'), games are frankly pretty terrible. They're too limited by what can be made engaging through interaction, too bound to event over emotion, and they don't draw from a wide or deep pool of influences.


*And I tend to rate art on the basis of the skill component more heavily than the aesthetic/emotional component. I find this erases the BS elevation of 'art' over 'craft,' even when the artist has a fraction of the craftsmen's/craftswomen's skills.

This is something I've wondered from time to time about other media. While I don't stress over the matter, I do ponder on it sometimes: when the majority of the things one enjoys is guilty-pleasure dumb stuff, does that mean one has bad tastes, and should feel ashamed about it?

The marvelous thing about liking smart things is that it doesn't proscribe liking dumb things. So I do both. The smarter stuff tends to take more mental work, but pay higher dividends if I put it in. The guilty-pleasure dumb stuff is very much low hanging fruit; easy to get, but liable to cause indigestion if it's all I consume. And videogames are very much in the guilty-pleasure dumb category. Even the smart ones.

[13_CBS]

The marvelous thing about liking smart things is that it doesn't proscribe liking dumb things. So I do both. The smarter stuff tends to take more mental work, but pay higher dividends if I put it in. The guilty-pleasure dumb stuff is very much low hanging fruit; easy to get, but liable to cause indigestion if it's all I consume. And videogames are very much in the guilty-pleasure dumb category. Even the smart ones.

The trouble begins when one does not enjoy anything smart...:smallfrown:

Edit:


However when it comes to saying things and telling stories of weight and worth (which to me is a separate concern from 'art'), games are frankly pretty terrible. They're too limited by what can be made engaging through interaction, too bound to event over emotion, and they don't draw from a wide or deep pool of influences.

Said critics and developers would also disagree with this assertion, and at the moment I'm more incline to disagree as well--if only because it's possible that we simply haven't seen a videogame that can overcome the limitation of engagement via interaction, emphasize emotion over events, and draw from wide/deep influence pools.

[warty goblin]

The trouble begins when one does not enjoy anything smart...:smallfrown:

I didn't for quite a few years. Then I got tired of reading books only about dragons, and watching movies entirely about explosions. Turns out that when I revisited a lot of the smart stuff I hadn't really touched since high school, I tended to like it. And I still get to read about dragons and watch things blow up.


Said critics and developers would also disagree with this assertion, and at the moment I'm more incline to disagree as well--if only because it's possible that we simply haven't seen a videogame that can overcome the limitation of engagement via interaction, emphasize emotion over events, and draw from wide/deep influence pools.

I don't see much utility in analyzing something based on what we can imagine it being, instead of what it is. I can imagine Twilight fanfiction writers giving us the greatest explosion of literary imagination since Shakespeare, but that doesn't make 50 Shades of Gray into Hamlet. I can also pretend all day long that someday somebody will release a game that manages to be a genuine classic for the ages. That doesn't change the fact that as it stands games are either fifth rate seventh generation rip-offs of pulp storytelling, or the fifth rate philosophical musings of somebody whose understanding of philosophy is to say something really vague about, like, death or something. All expressed through shooting nameless, disposable enemies, stabbing nameless, disposable enemies, collecting items and experience points, unlocking upgrades, jumping on platforms, or driving really fast.

Sure, in a wild flight of fancy I can imagine that. But if I'm being honest and reasonable with myself? If I ask the question not assuming that because I find them enjoyable, there has to be anything more to games than some easy fun? I don't see it. I can see occasionally something meaty ending up in a game in spite of those limitations, at which point it gets seized upon by gaming journalists and critics like a pork shoulder thrown to starving wolves.

[13_CBS]

I don't see much utility in analyzing something based on what we can imagine it being, instead of what it is.

If I'm understanding your position correctly, you're asserting that videogames CANNOT engage through interaction, be free of events and emphasize emotion, etc., correct? My argument is that it is not necessarily that it impossible for videogames to be free of those perceived limitations, merely difficult given the relative youth of the medium--hence the current apparent lack of examples.

While it may be true that there is not much utility in doing so (for a given definition of utility), the point that the critics and developers are trying to make is that we (or at least some) should attempt make "what we imagine" into "what is", through careful analysis, experimentation, and a bit of risk-taking.



I can imagine Twilight fanfiction writers giving us the greatest explosion of literary imagination since Shakespeare, but that doesn't make 50 Shades of Gray into Hamlet. I can also pretend all day long that someday somebody will release a game that manages to be a genuine classic for the ages.

The analogy is invalid, I think: Twilight fanfiction and Shakespeare are in the same medium (well, technically not, but I get your point), while what we're discussing here is the viability of videogames overcoming those perceived limitations. Twilight fanfiction is, in theory, primarily held back by relative lack of skill in its writers, while we're talking about inherent properties of a medium.



That doesn't change the fact that as it stands games are either fifth rate seventh generation rip-offs of pulp storytelling, or the fifth rate philosophical musings of somebody whose understanding of philosophy is to say something really vague about, like, death or something. All expressed through shooting nameless, disposable enemies, stabbing nameless, disposable enemies, collecting items and experience points, unlocking upgrades, jumping on platforms, or driving really fast.

Sure, in a wild flight of fancy I can imagine that. But if I'm being honest and reasonable with myself? If I ask the question not assuming that because I find them enjoyable, there has to be anything more to games than some easy fun? I don't see it. I can see occasionally something meaty ending up in a game in spite of those limitations, at which point it gets seized upon by gaming journalists and critics like a pork shoulder thrown to starving wolves.

In summary...

You are saying that it is impossible, or practically impossible, for videogames to become anything more than easy fun. Your evidence is that videogames have certain limitations that prevent them from doing that, and this is demonstrated by the lack of videogames that overcome limitations to become more than easy fun.

I am saying the current lack of such videogames does not necessarily indicate that videogames becoming more than easy fun is impossible: lack of evidence =/= evidence of lack, etc. Now, whether or not we should be trying to make videogames more than easy fun is another discussion.

Edit: Hrm, I should try to get back on topic...


[QUOTE=Archpaladin Zousha;16129387]
Am I aiding and abetting a lazy and deceptive industry by buying objectively crappy games and attempting to enjoy them out of a sense of loyalty to the brand?

Well...in the very most technical sense, yes. But your contribution is so minor that it's not much to worry about.

[Tavar]

It makes the conflict impossible by removing the distinction. Geth and Quarians will still be able to kill each other, but it won't be a synthetic/organic conflict because neither of them fit into those categories any more.

You don't destroy free will by forcing a single choice on someone. Otherwise compulsory education would have rid most of humanity of that a long time ago. Throwing someone in prison doesn't mean their free will is damaged forever and that they won't try to break out. Since you're making everyone super awesome, you're probably expanding their free will because they'll have more choices now.

All the endings are 'one person making a choice for the galaxy', choosing to not uplift everyone is just as much enforcing your will as choosing to uplift everyone. The only real argument you can make from an 'ignoring other's free will' perspective is that the alliance forces had already reached a 'destroy all the reapers' consensus so you're back-stabbing them if you don't pick Destroy, but since that consensus was reached without your information its flawed.
Here's the thing: Synthetic and Organic isn't really presented as a reason for any of the wars. Seriously, the Geth war was started over other reasons, and that's the only big Synthetic vs Organic struggle that wasn't directed by the Reapers. The other struggles were organic vs organic, and that seems to largely hold true.

So, either the Starchild is talking out of it's ass, or it's doing something to cause a peace, in which case it is altering stuff, and given the tone at the end the latter is much more likely.

And, while removing a single choice isn't against free will, removing a spectrum of choices? That is, and that's the only way Synthesis seems to make sense, unless you assume that people don't have conflicts for reasons beyond Synthetic and organic(in which case, I'd direct you to both look at human history and ME history).

[Psyren]

Here's the thing: Synthetic and Organic isn't really presented as a reason for any of the wars. Seriously, the Geth war was started over other reasons, and that's the only big Synthetic vs Organic struggle that wasn't directed by the Reapers. The other struggles were organic vs organic, and that seems to largely hold true.

It only appears that way if you aren't paying attention. Synthetic vs. Organic is very much the reason behind the Morning War.

The Geth were not totally innocuous either. We're all aware that the Quarians freaked when the Geth asked whether they had souls. But they did not go straight from that to gunning Geth down in the street. Did you know that? Did you pay attention to the Geth history, and what happened between those two events?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

The game's not been out that long, and is getting patched all the time. The guides are gonna be incomplete. If you don't want to play without a complete guide, just back burner the game for a couple months until they are done. It's not like it's going to delete itself from your hard drive or anything.
But other events in my life might take the time I use to game away. Stuff like getting a full-time job or a second part-time job. Going to grad school. Trying to do the NaNoWriMo competition, and most likely failing at it. Life happens, it piles up. And THAT'S what's bothering me. That I have such a massive backlog of stuff, and that as life goes on I'll have less and less time to do it, rendering all the money I spent a waste as I bought all these things and now no longer have the time for them.

I can't speak to being autistic. I can however assure you that a lot of people put on a mask or play a role when they go to work, particularly in the service industry. Virtually nobody is actually delighted to see a customer, but everybody pretends to be. The interaction isn't genuine, both sides know it, but life is a little more pleasant for everybody because of the lie.
I try to genuinely smile and be happy at work, and it seems that the customers DO appreciate that.

And do your team mates talk about you behind your back? Probably, to exactly the extent they talk about anybody else on the team behind their back. If they're being polite and supportive to your face, accept that and continue to work hard. I guarantee you that if your work isn't up to snuff, your boss will let you know.
Yeah, but I constantly worry that I make one mistake I'll get fired. I tend to treat life like a driving test. One mistake, and you fail, and the test is over.

That genuinely sucks man, my sympathies. Genuine suckage happens in life though, there's no use castigating oneself for it for the rest of time. Life goes on. You've got a new job now, so work at that, and keep looking for opportunities to use your degree - if in fact using your degree is something you want to do. And your Mom is riding you way too hard on this. You were the one who lost a job, not her.
But as her son, my actions reflect on her parenting skills. When I act weird, or get fired, or do something else socially inappropriate, then I just prove all the others right: that autistic people aren't capable of being socially and financially independent and shouldn't be integrated into neurotypical students and society because they'll be disruptive and can't get through school without too much expensive help, and that they shouldn't even freakin' breed because all that does is make more autistic people that eat up public funds and time that could be better spent elsewhere!

By blowing that job, I blew my chance to get rid of my debt, and now that sword's going to be hanging over my head forever because I can't make enough money to pay it off working 30 hours a week at a Panera!

Unfortunate newsflash: videogames are a waste of time. That's their entire point; there's no point defending them on that charge. And if you aren't into them, they look incredibly stupid. I've been putting up with this crap from my parents for years now. Just ignore it.
It's hard to ignore when it's unspoken. I don't really have people I can talk to in person about my hobbies, so when I go to the internet and talk to people who do share my interests, they say I spend too much time on the computer.

Speaking as somebody who wears his hair longer than most women, I have no idea what hairstyle has to do anything.
He doesn't bother to take care of it, and no one's going to hire him with hair that long. He needs a job too, and he doesn't really care about it! All he does is sit at his computer banging his head to some Pantera or Black Sabbath, before going to Facebook and ranting about how superior metal music is compared to EVERY OTHER MUSIC EVER! It's annoying.

You lost your first job out of college. You have a lot of college debt. Your current job doesn't use your degree. This is true for lots and lots of people. Hell, it's practically the hallmark of our generation. It's not a good situation, but again self-flagellation doesn't help it in the slightest.
My psychiatrist told me the exact same thing. I said as much to my mom. She retorted with a rhetorical question as to whether I wanna serve bagels for the rest of my life. And it's difficult to have a leg to stand on when my younger siblings DO have jobs that use their degrees. One of my brothers uses his Music Therapy degree in his work at a elderly care facility, and his love of folk music and Scottish tunes make him a big hit with the residents. My sister used her Music Theater degree and went on a tour for the Missoula Children's Theater, going everywhere from Texas to Nevada to Iowa and back, each week teaching kids how to put on a play, and she's going on ANOTHER tour for them in January! What have I done with my English degree? I had a brief stint tutoring elementary school kids how to read that I got fired from because I wasn't consistent enough in my instructions to meet their standards. How can I not feel ashamed when I'm supposed to be the example, the model my siblings are supposed to follow, as I'm the oldest in the family, and they succeed right out of college while I flounder through two jobs and an internship and then that National Service bit that I got fired from?

If your interest didn't peter out and you kept playing, would you have anything more to show for the time you'd spent playing up until now? You'd have the enjoyment you got out of playing them, and that's about it. Same as if your interest is petering out. If you spend a hundred odd hours playing a game you don't like, your money is just as 'wasted' as if you don't.
Money you spend on something isn't wasted if you use the thing you spend the money on. Interest or not, if you use it, then you fulfill the purpose you bought it for.

And there's nothing wrong with walking out of a movie. If it's terrible, there's no reason to blow two hours of my life on it. The money is just as wasted if I stay or go, because I've spent it on unnecessary crap that doesn't even make me happy. Only question is whether to send a couple hours swirling down the drain after it.
I'm worried I'll look like an ungrateful jack*** if I do that.

But hey, if you can't leave yourself alone if you don't play your games, play them. Then stop beating yourself up about it, and if you aren't having fun with games and feel bad about spending money on them, don't buy any new ones.
I'm not. At least not now. There's nothing really coming out that interests me until next year anyway.

You can buy auto-tuners for like $20. Barring that, I'd bet a local music shop would be happy to tune a violin for a small fee.
We don't have music shops in Hastings. It's a real bedroom community. People have houses here, and there's grocery stores and restaurants and conviencence stores. But to do anything FUN, you have to drive to the Twin Cities which is a half-hour away. And as I said before, I don't have a driver's license.

That aside, it may just be one of those periods of life when it's time to try some new stuff. It's a feature of growing up, not a bug. It doesn't even have to be dramatically new, just a bit different. Try different books, tell that lazy part of yourself that doesn't want to clean up a mess to sit down and shutup, then go and cook or whatever else seems interesting; damn the mess. Or take up knitting, it's pretty mess-free, once you get to the point of knitting gloves and sweaters and things is actually useful, and quite enjoyable. If that's insufficiently manly, try chainmail. Or running. Or anything really. Just make yourself go do stuff you don't normally do, and there's a reasonable chance that alone will make you feel better. Particularly if it's something that requires thought and attention so it pulls your mind out of itself.

Comfort zones are nice, but if one doesn't expand them occasionally, they can turn into prisons.
What if what I do sucks, though? My sister already bakes stuff when she's bored. What if my stuff isn't as good as hers? I know I'm going to try NaNoWriMo, but I can't stop stressing over it. I haven't written anything near 15,000 words since my college days, and that was three years ago! I get really really scared about doing things outside my comfort zone because I'm afraid of screwing up. I feel like if I screw up I'll alienate the people around me. Life's like a driving test, one mistake and you fail and the test is done.

You may want to try to do something about that. I'm probably going to raise some hackles with this, but I don't think pretending to be somebody else over the internet really counts. I don't know exactly what you can do, I don't know all the particulars of your situation, but there's probably something available. It may require doing something that doesn't involve dragons and orcs, but that's not a bad thing.
Are you saying I'm so detached I can't tell the game from reality? Because I know that's not true!

[13_CBS]

What if what I do sucks, though? My sister already bakes stuff when she's bored. What if my stuff isn't as good as hers? I know I'm going to try NaNoWriMo, but I can't stop stressing over it. I haven't written anything near 15,000 words since my college days, and that was three years ago! I get really really scared about doing things outside my comfort zone because I'm afraid of screwing up. I feel like if I screw up I'll alienate the people around me. Life's like a driving test, one mistake and you fail and the test is done.

In the case of things like writing: no one expects you to craft a Shakespeare on your first try. I understand that you hold yourself to high expectations, but especially for hobbies--it's quite alright if you don't come up with a masterpiece.

And let's say, somehow you do screw up. What have you lost? If you write something good for NaNoWriMo, then that's awesome. If you don't...eh, try again next year. Indeed, there are a few things in life you might not want to mess up on, but an annual writing exercise is not one of those things.

[Tavar]

My psychiatrist told me the exact same thing. I said as much to my mom. She retorted with a rhetorical question as to whether I wanna serve bagels for the rest of my life. And it's difficult to have a leg to stand on when my younger siblings DO have jobs that use their degrees. One of my brothers uses his Music Therapy degree in his work at a elderly care facility, and his love of folk music and Scottish tunes make him a big hit with the residents. My sister used her Music Theater degree and went on a tour for the Missoula Children's Theater, going everywhere from Texas to Nevada to Iowa and back, each week teaching kids how to put on a play, and she's going on ANOTHER tour for them in January! What have I done with my English degree? I had a brief stint tutoring elementary school kids how to read that I got fired from because I wasn't consistent enough in my instructions to meet their standards. How can I not feel ashamed when I'm supposed to be the example, the model my siblings are supposed to follow, as I'm the oldest in the family, and they succeed right out of college while I flounder through two jobs and an internship and then that National Service bit that I got fired from?
I hate to say it, but if you aren't really social, being a teacher might not be the best application for your degree. Did you specialize in any particular area in english? And have you considered doing editing? Or going into stuff like Technical writing?


@Psyren
It only appears that way if you aren't paying attention. Synthetic vs. Organic is very much the reason behind the Morning War.

The Geth were not totally innocuous either. We're all aware that the Quarians freaked when the Geth asked whether they had souls. But they did not go straight from that to gunning Geth down in the street. Did you know that? Did you pay attention to the Geth history, and what happened between those two events?

I don't know, did you pay attention? Because, given what's shown in the trip through history, you don't appear to have. The Geth started asking questions only intelligent beings would ask, which freaked the Quarians out because of the Anti-Artifical Intelligence laws, but it's notable that those laws also tie into creating artificial organic beings. That lead to attempted shut downs, which turned violent, which lead to the geth fighting back.

[Nerd-o-rama]

"Violate" is such a loaded and fallacious term. It seems to me that the only way people can even attempt to argue against this by relying on repugnance, which is just a subset of the standard appeal to emotion fallacy.

Appeal to emotion is only a fallacy if I'm making a logical argument. I'm not. I'm just stating my own emotional reaction because there is no logically "best" ending. People have to choose based on their emotions and personal ideologies, which is the one thing I like about how the endings are set up.

[Psyren]

@Psyren

I don't know, did you pay attention? Because, given what's shown in the trip through history, you don't appear to have. The Geth started asking questions only intelligent beings would ask, which freaked the Quarians out because of the Anti-Artifical Intelligence laws, but it's notable that those laws also tie into creating artificial organic beings. That lead to attempted shut downs, which turned violent, which lead to the geth fighting back.

I responded to you over in the ME thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16138467#post16138467) so we can stop derailing this one.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I hate to say it, but if you aren't really social, being a teacher might not be the best application for your degree. Did you specialize in any particular area in english? And have you considered doing editing? Or going into stuff like Technical writing?
Literature emphasis. I switched from Writing because I was struggling with the English Grammars course...just like everyone else in the course. I didn't want to take it over again, so I changed emphasis.

[warty goblin]

But other events in my life might take the time I use to game away. Stuff like getting a full-time job or a second part-time job. Going to grad school. Trying to do the NaNoWriMo competition, and most likely failing at it. Life happens, it piles up. And THAT'S what's bothering me. That I have such a massive backlog of stuff, and that as life goes on I'll have less and less time to do it, rendering all the money I spent a waste as I bought all these things and now no longer have the time for them.

Look at it like this: you have time to game now. You don't seem to be particularly happy, even with the games. Now would you rather continue like this, or get a better job, or go to grad school, try some new and potentially more enjoyable hobbies or any number of other options at the expense of gaming time? Because making other parts of your life more rewarding will probably erode gaming time.

If they're genuinely more rewarding though, it's a trade well worth making. I'm in grad school, and I often go a week straight without playing a game, both because I don't have time, and because there are other, more rewarding ways to spend my time. I really do not miss the times when I could do nothing but run around stabbing pixel-orcs for five hours at a stretch, because life now is much richer. I still play games, because I enjoy them. But nothing like I did a couple years ago.


I try to genuinely smile and be happy at work, and it seems that the customers DO appreciate that.
And that's something to be proud of. Customer service is hard, and customers are frequently clear proof that something is deeply wrong with humanity.


Yeah, but I constantly worry that I make one mistake I'll get fired. I tend to treat life like a driving test. One mistake, and you fail, and the test is over.
Which is not an invalid worry; making mistakes is bad. But there's no reason for paralysis in fear of making a mistake. Many mistakes in life can be recovered from; I've bounced back from a fair few myself. Hell, I pretty much flamed out at the first grad school I went to. By the end of the second week I was punching brick walls - not something I'd done before or since - and by the end of the semester I could hardly make myself get out of bed. But I talked my way into a better program, and am doing fine.


But as her son, my actions reflect on her parenting skills. When I act weird, or get fired, or do something else socially inappropriate, then I just prove all the others right: that autistic people aren't capable of being socially and financially independent and shouldn't be integrated into neurotypical students and society because they'll be disruptive and can't get through school without too much expensive help, and that they shouldn't even freakin' breed because all that does is make more autistic people that eat up public funds and time that could be better spent elsewhere!
OK, there are things I can offer some advice on. This is unfortunately out of my depth. About the best I can offer is that somebody somewhere is going to disapprove of what you do, whatever you do. Try to make sure that somebody isn't you.


By blowing that job, I blew my chance to get rid of my debt, and now that sword's going to be hanging over my head forever because I can't make enough money to pay it off working 30 hours a week at a Panera!
The college debt thing is legitimately FUBAR, not just for you but at a societal level. This isn't one I can help with, beyond useless platitudes like try to make more money. Which, as advice goes, is rather like saying try to catch on fire less.


It's hard to ignore when it's unspoken. I don't really have people I can talk to in person about my hobbies, so when I go to the internet and talk to people who do share my interests, they say I spend too much time on the computer.

Hey, I'm pretty sure my Mom would consider me a likely mass murderer if she knew some of the stuff that I've played over the years. After Virginia Tech, I'm not entirely convinced my Dad didn't think I was a potential college shooter for a couple weeks. For most of my life I've barely been able to tell my parents that I game, and certainly not what I play. It hasn't stopped me, hasn't really even hurt me that much. Sticks and stones man.

And unless I'm misremembering, the last thread where this came up, you worried that you didn't have time or motivation to play Dragon Age anymore because you spent so much time on play by post games. Fretting that you don't have time to play games on the computer because of all the other games you're playing on the computer is maybe a sign you're playing a lot of games on the computer. And if you don't find them satisfying, there's nothing out there about suggesting maybe trying something not on the computer.


He doesn't bother to take care of it, and no one's going to hire him with hair that long. He needs a job too, and he doesn't really care about it! All he does is sit at his computer banging his head to some Pantera or Black Sabbath, before going to Facebook and ranting about how superior metal music is compared to EVERY OTHER MUSIC EVER! It's annoying.
Hardcore fans of anything are annoying. They tend to grow out of it eventually.

And I've been hired for plenty of jobs with my hair. They've even let me teach impressionable young people. Technically I think I'm now actually a federal employee.


My psychiatrist told me the exact same thing. I said as much to my mom. She retorted with a rhetorical question as to whether I wanna serve bagels for the rest of my life. And it's difficult to have a leg to stand on when my younger siblings DO have jobs that use their degrees. One of my brothers uses his Music Therapy degree in his work at a elderly care facility, and his love of folk music and Scottish tunes make him a big hit with the residents. My sister used her Music Theater degree and went on a tour for the Missoula Children's Theater, going everywhere from Texas to Nevada to Iowa and back, each week teaching kids how to put on a play, and she's going on ANOTHER tour for them in January! What have I done with my English degree? I had a brief stint tutoring elementary school kids how to read that I got fired from because I wasn't consistent enough in my instructions to meet their standards. How can I not feel ashamed when I'm supposed to be the example, the model my siblings are supposed to follow, as I'm the oldest in the family, and they succeed right out of college while I flounder through two jobs and an internship and then that National Service bit that I got fired from?
Listen to your psychiatrist on this one. Very few people want to cut bagels for the rest of their life. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing it for a while as a stop-gap though, no matter your plans for the future. Hell, my first job out of college was as a line cook where I was burned, cut, steamed, broiled, deep-fried, occasionally smeared with caustic chemicals, and accused of every sexual deviancy you can name, and a few you probably can't. All for the princely sum of $8.00 an hour. But it made me some money when I needed it. There's no shame in working jobs you don't want to hold for the rest of your life.

I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of about cutting bagels for the rest of your life, come to it.

Money you spend on something isn't wasted if you use the thing you spend the money on. Interest or not, if you use it, then you fulfill the purpose you bought it for.
Unless I'm really missing something, the purpose of a game is to have fun playing it. If you aren't having fun, it can't really be used for its purpose. It's kinda why people bother with reviews and opinions and all that. If the purpose was just to play the thing, one game would be quite as good as another.


I'm worried I'll look like an ungrateful jack*** if I do that.
So what if you do?


I'm not. At least not now. There's nothing really coming out that interests me until next year anyway.
So that's one problem you don't need to worry about for a while.


We don't have music shops in Hastings. It's a real bedroom community. People have houses here, and there's grocery stores and restaurants and conviencence stores. But to do anything FUN, you have to drive to the Twin Cities which is a half-hour away. And as I said before, I don't have a driver's license.
There's also the marvel that is the internet. I'd bet you could order such a thing if you wanted to.


What if what I do sucks, though? My sister already bakes stuff when she's bored. What if my stuff isn't as good as hers? I know I'm going to try NaNoWriMo, but I can't stop stressing over it. I haven't written anything near 15,000 words since my college days, and that was three years ago! I get really really scared about doing things outside my comfort zone because I'm afraid of screwing up. I feel like if I screw up I'll alienate the people around me. Life's like a driving test, one mistake and you fail and the test is done.
Here's the nice thing about hobbies: the only person who cares about how well you do at it is you. Driving tests are like that because screwing up can get other people killed. Nobody's gonna die from a batch of less than delicious chocolate chip cookies.

And because the only person who really cares is you; you get to be as harsh or forgiving as you want. Personally I favor a highly forgiving attitude towards hobby work. A lot of the time you don't even have to admit the mistakes to other people. I've definitely got some wood carvings that never see the light of day.


Are you saying I'm so detached I can't tell the game from reality? Because I know that's not true!
No, I'm saying that there are other forms of social interaction out there, which are possibly more rewarding that pretending to be somebody else over the internet with strangers. Taking advantage of this might require some horizon broadening.

At least in my experience of horizon-broadening, it doesn't end up being a wretched experience just because it isn't catering to my exact tastes. Sometimes I even find new things that I enjoy, often I can just enjoy whatever with people.

[Avilan the Grey]

Skyrim

I am talking about games that a MAJORITY of people hate. Skyrim has never been that.

As for games as a waste of time? This is only true if one considers anything but eat, sleep and poop a waste of time. Literature is a waste of time. Photography is a waste of time. Music is a waste of time. Love is a waste of time.

Now the one thing I agree IS a waste of time is WORK. But hey.

Oh and the problem with Syntethis in ME3, for me, is the "Final Stage Of Evolution" part. You are basically killing Nature. If that is true. Nothing will ever evolve. Nothing will ever change.
Of course that is only true for one out of billions galaxies, but that's another matter.

[factotum]

I'm worried I'll look like an ungrateful jack*** if I do that.


That seems to me a somewhat strange attitude. If you went and bought an apple from a market stall, and it turned out to be rotten, would you eat it anyway for fear of looking ungrateful if you didn't? To my mind, that's the same situation--you've paid for something (in this case, a couple of hours of entertainment) and it's turned out way below expectation.

I mean, I get what you're saying--you've paid for it, you feel you need to get your money's worth by actually watching it; I have a similar attitude. However, if the film is truly, unremittingly awful, I won't put myself through the effort of watching it all once I realise I wasted my money. Doesn't happen often because I usually try to figure out from reviews etc. if a film is worth my time--last time I can recall giving up on one was the live action "Inspector Gadget" movie, which I walked out of after about 20 minutes.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

There's only really been one movie I went to the theaters do see that I didn't like, and the part where it really sunk low was near the conclusion, so I just decided to wait it out. What annoys me to this day is that there were some great actors in it, and it may have had some potential, but it just ended up becoming disgusting.

[Choyrt]

I am talking about games that a MAJORITY of people hate.

I got one! I loved the two games below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Star_wars_rebellion_box.png

Star Wars Rebellion promised to be Master of Orion-esque but it was completely different in mechanics. It took a while to chew through, but in the end I was in love. I can't tell you how much ire this game earned in my dorm when it came out.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HJ94M20KL.jpg

This game was pig ugly with a terrible interface and deplorable sound effects but I was completely addicted to it. Better games came after, but I literally bombed finals because of this damned game.

Returning to the conversation about Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, I enjoyed both games. I would even go as far as to assert starry-eyed love for ME3 with the refined ending. ME3 was a perfect cap on that amazing saga despite resources being wasted on superfluous multiplayer.

As for Dragon Age 2, the issue I had was the amazing combat for the first game was completely gone and it was very hard to find an actual likable character among your troop. My wife actually won't let me play it near her because the characters piss her off that much. With consistently recycled dungeon areas, Dragon Age 2 was not what it could have been despite glimmers of brilliance.

[Avilan the Grey]

Ah... The SSI logo gives me warm and fuzzy childhood feelings...

...Eye Of The Beholder... :smallsmile:

[OrcusMcP]

Ah... The SSI logo gives me warm and fuzzy childhood feelings...

...Eye Of The Beholder... :smallsmile:

Imperialism! :smallamused:

[Choyrt]

I somehow got imperialism for free, and I could NEVER figure it out! I did give Capitalism a turn or two, though.

[Psyren]

Ah... The SSI logo gives me warm and fuzzy childhood feelings...

...Eye Of The Beholder... :smallsmile:


Imperialism! :smallamused:

Dark Legions :smallbiggrin:

[TaRix]

Imperialism's fine. II might be easier to figure out, actually. Pity combat seemed to boil down to 1)Get better artillery first, 2)Failing that, bring enough fodder and mobile artillery.

Don't think Capitalism was made by the same company. I have a copy somewhere, but the manual intimidated me. And I like manuals.

[Gnoman]

Carrier Strike was best SSI game.

[russdm]

Liking games that others don't doesn't mean anything. Just that you have different favorites. It only matters with games that are actually a blight agaisnt human conscience, like one that is so offensive nobody can stand it even when laughing.

I happen to like Star Wars Force Commander and tried to get into Rebellion. Force Commander has gotten some serious bad reviews, but I never say anything wrong with it. I also like the prequels plus the matrix sequels and I like D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th edition equally.

Frankly, customers exist solely to provide endless torments.

Being autistic too, i would say that dealing with people is difficult. But people are an abstract concept. They might not even exist.

Looking for approval on the internet is like asking some blade of grass if your outfit looks nice. Its completely pointless.

I am more annoyed with having to pay something like $60 bucks for something that is essentially an action hollywood movie. That would be games like the Call of Duties, games that are more about the multiplayer and yet they are still 60 dollars. Crappy. Also, i have noticed more newer games going for flashy-ness and visuals then stories.

I loved the Mass Effects and Halo because it showed what was possible with games in telling great stories. Then you have games like Call of Duty X: more pointless shooting that encourage the dumb mentalities. Or the endless Fifa 20XXs, which are essentially the same game with new features that should have been a 15 dollar downloadable not another 60 bucks.

Back in the day, telling a story actually mattered and the time was spent on doing that in game. Nowadays more games are using crappy stories and trying to make up for it with visuals, guns, or flashyness(graphics, nudity, etc).

And you should always get your money's worth. Always.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Well, looks like Mother Nature may be conspiring to MAKE me unplug. My internet will be sporadic for the next few days. We've got a storm blowing through Hastings until Sunday, which plays havoc with my wireless. :smallfrown:

[Avilan the Grey]

Well, looks like Mother Nature may be conspiring to MAKE me unplug.

Real life. What has it ever given us? *Hmmph* :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[OrcusMcP]

Imperialism's fine. II might be easier to figure out, actually. Pity combat seemed to boil down to 1)Get better artillery first, 2)Failing that, bring enough fodder and mobile artillery.

Artillery was a big part of it, true, but the big hurdle that allowed me to get good at Imperialism was the "Heavy Troops" trap. Heavy and Medium Infantry/artillery are for DEfense. The light infantry and artillery are for offense.

[Seatbelt]

Rebellion was sweet. The Haters just suck.

[russdm]

Rebellion was sweet. The Haters just suck.

I tried to get into this, but it just dumps you in without any information about how to get started. Plus the manual explains little about getting on. I lost on both rebellion side and imperial side. Just couldn't figure it all out. Plus its learning curve is just way to steep. A short little tutorial or tutorial vids like Empire at War has, would have helped a lot.

[Seatbelt]

I tried to get into this, but it just dumps you in without any information about how to get started. Plus the manual explains little about getting on. I lost on both rebellion side and imperial side. Just couldn't figure it all out. Plus its learning curve is just way to steep. A short little tutorial or tutorial vids like Empire at War has, would have helped a lot.

I can't tell you how many games I lost before I started winning. I was maybe 10. So I have no sympathy. :P

[Logic]

Rebellion was sweet. The Haters just suck.


I tried to get into this, but it just dumps you in without any information about how to get started. Plus the manual explains little about getting on. I lost on both rebellion side and imperial side. Just couldn't figure it all out. Plus its learning curve is just way to steep. A short little tutorial or tutorial vids like Empire at War has, would have helped a lot.


I can't tell you how many games I lost before I started winning. I was maybe 10. So I have no sympathy. :P

Rebellion was a difficult game to begin with, and then on top of it, it had a steep learning curve that balks at your "ten miles in the snow uphill" stories.

I won the game ONCE, as the Rebellion, on a Headquarters only victory, after 600+ days.*

*Game days

[Seatbelt]

Rebellion was a difficult game to begin with, and then on top of it, it had a steep learning curve that balks at your "ten miles in the snow uphill" stories.

I won the game ONCE, as the Rebellion, on a Headquarters only victory, after 600+ days.*

*Game days

idk. Once I figured out how to win it I never lost a game? Not saying I'm great at video games. And it did take me a LOT of games to figure out how to win. A number of things I had to learn for myself (like how mines and refineries generate income, and how to add decoys). But... seriously. I played that game a ton as both factions and I'm addicted to long games so I played huge maps that required complete kills. Once I had that a-ha! moment and kind of figured it out.. was the game really that hard?

I mean.. I remember learning how to get systems to chain-join you so you could get an entire sector under your influence pretty quickly. Prioritizing liberating planets. Upgrading your infrastructure etc etc.

[Logic]

idk. Once I figured out how to win it I never lost a game? Not saying I'm great at video games. And it did take me a LOT of games to figure out how to win. A number of things I had to learn for myself (like how mines and refineries generate income, and how to add decoys). But... seriously. I played that game a ton as both factions and I'm addicted to long games so I played huge maps that required complete kills. Once I had that a-ha! moment and kind of figured it out.. was the game really that hard?

I mean.. I remember learning how to get systems to chain-join you so you could get an entire sector under your influence pretty quickly. Prioritizing liberating planets. Upgrading your infrastructure etc etc.

I don't recall any chain-joining. I do recall traitors suck, and if you are in a stalemate anywhere, they pop up EVERYWHERE.

[Seatbelt]

I don't recall any chain-joining. I do recall traitors suck, and if you are in a stalemate anywhere, they pop up EVERYWHERE.

I had to google what you meant. I think I might recall having a traitor once or twice. But I can't be sure if my brain is just fabricating that memory or not. If it did happen to me it almost never ever happened.

You could get planets in a sector to domino-join you. As planets join you it affects the loyalty of other near-by planets. So you could often send someone to do a diplomacy mission on a system and when it joined you it would bring some of the higher-loyalty neutral worlds under your control. If you did it properly you could often chain the entire sector to join you. You could do similar things by liberating worlds that were under enemy control but not particularly loyal. Free the planet and it becomes neutral (which causes a positive loyalty shift in the sector) and the loyalty bonus you get from liberating it causes it to join your faction (which causes a positive loyalty shift in the sector).

In the beginning one of the first things you should be doing is looking for enemy planets with a low loyalty rating. Then you send sabtours and insurrectionists to that planet and sabotage enemy troops and foment unrest until the planet flips.

You mean you never saw any of that happen...?

[Logic]

You mean you never saw any of that happen...?

Nope, never never never. I guess I just played the game wrong, but nothing like that happened for me.

As for traitors: They randomly pop up more often the longer you are in game, the better off your enemy is, and are more problematic for the Empire. Anise Griff, Terrinald Screed, and Labansat were my frequent traitors.

[Choyrt]

Regarding Rebellion, just be certain to NEVER build the Death Star. I used to focus on that all the time when I played the Empire and each damned time it would simply 'pop' from some uppity X-wing!


http://makezineblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/x-wing-derby-racer.jpg?w=600&h=450

And I agree that the game had an absurd learning curve. The manual was garbage, and I suspect many gave up on the game early before they even could get a feel for it. MOO3 had the same problem with its 60+ ingame menus.

[russdm]

And I agree that the game had an absurd learning curve. The manual was garbage, and I suspect many gave up on the game early before they even could get a feel for it. MOO3 had the same problem with its 60+ ingame menus.

The game needed a better manual that helped to explain things. The manual we were given explained nothing about actually playing, from my recollections, and left you in the dark. It nicely told you about the ships of course, but nothing actually about how the game worked.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm starting to feel more immersed in Dragon Age than I was a week ago. Maybe feeling like I'd made some progress was all it took to get back into it? I just finished Broken Circle.

[Zevox]

I'm starting to feel more immersed in Dragon Age than I was a week ago. Maybe feeling like I'd made some progress was all it took to get back into it? I just finished Broken Circle.
That can happen sometimes. I'm currently playing Shin Megami Tensei 4, and tend to feel a bit bored with it when I need to spend too much time searching the world map for my next destination. Or if I go out of my way to try and complete side-quests. Getting to the next part of the actual story always helps me get back into it.

[factotum]

The manual was garbage, and I suspect many gave up on the game early before they even could get a feel for it. MOO3 had the same problem with its 60+ ingame menus.

However, MOO3 was still garbage even *after* you got the feel for it, so it's probably not quite the same situation. :smallsmile:

[Archpaladin Zousha]

That can happen sometimes. I'm currently playing Shin Megami Tensei 4, and tend to feel a bit bored with it when I need to spend too much time searching the world map for my next destination. Or if I go out of my way to try and complete side-quests. Getting to the next part of the actual story always helps me get back into it.
Plus, my circadian rhythm's finally righting itself, so I've got more energy and time.

[Choyrt]

However, MOO3 was still garbage even *after* you got the feel for it, so it's probably not quite the same situation. :smallsmile:

You are a stronger man than I. After about an hour and a half of 'what the ****'ing I just played Galactic Civilization instead.

[Pronounceable]

I'm beginning to see a pattern in game releases these days. A game will be intensely hyped up until it's release, and then when it actually IS released, a few days later, despite positive reviews in publication, it seems the internet's unanimnous opinion is that the game sucks, was a waste of money, and that the publishers and creators are vile people whom they'll never patronize again. And even when the companies make an effort to placate the fanbase, it's almost always "too little too late."
This phenomenon can easily be explained by the simple axiom: "People are dumb as ****". They buy into marketing bull**** and start thinking that this upcoming game will be the greatest thing ever and playing it will give them eternal happiness. Then, obviously, they don't get eternal happiness from it and crushing disappointment stemming from their own stupidity makes them believe every single thing about the game is terrible. And further stupidity makes them go online to whine and moan because of their wasted money and time for hours, wasting even more of their time.

I blame the society for all this in general and marketing industry in particular. Marketing industry is behind almost all evils in the modern world.

[russdm]

Games are hyped up so they will sell earning profit for the company. How much the game actually lives up to the hype is open for interpretation. I simply do the following: Wait for the game to be reviewed by a semi-trusted source, such as PC Gamer, and read their review; read a few other reviews on other sites if possible; compare results with reviews on amazon.com from customers; determine whether game would be liked by self and if so, purchase game or have it ready for purchasing in a list or remembered for later. This works wonders for me, and I have avoided buying any kind of really bad games.

Also, remember that nowadays most game companies are jumping on the bandwagon by producing what sells now, despite the fact it takes like 5-6 years to make a game. And selling sequels of a franchise is supposed to make money for you. You do get what your money is worth, if it is not worth the amount you spent, well, you can always sell the game off.

As for whining, save the reviewing for a month later so you are not angry and having a hissy fit. That will able a lot for others when you write your review. Another thing is that you should try to get into the game and if you can't, treat it as all being played for laughs. That helps me with some games.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Have a bit of a question regarding Dragon Age: Origins, and figured I'd avoid spamming the boards with another thread:

I just found that the promo items have been given out for free to any game owner, and I unlocked them over on BioWare's social page. But when I boot the game up, it says Download Failed. What did I do wrong?

And on the subject of a sucky game that I like: Neverwinter Nights 2. That is all.

[d12]

And on the subject of a sucky game that I like: Neverwinter Nights 2. That is all.

My opinion of NWN2 is sort of complicated. On the whole I would say I like it. I would have preferred an open map, a la Elder Scrolls, and after a while I resorted to just flat-out party-size cheating because I was tired of dealing with the rock-stupid combat AI and I didn't feel like micromanaging everybody in the party at all times. So the solution was to attrition every encounter with lots of party members.

Then there's the issue of basically every party member being a stereotype (which is more of a general problem I have with how D&D characters usually turn out). I don't care what anybody says though, I like Neeshka, and the sort of frienemy dynamic she and Khelgar have going after a while.

As for the original topic: you'd be best off not letting other people's opinions influence what you think about games. Hell, I apparently have a talent for finding the one game in a series that many die-hard fans absolutely hate for one reason or another, and not only will it be my introduction to the series, I will end up loving that game, sometimes for the exact reasons others give for hating it. :smalltongue:

[Geno9999]

I kind of liked Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic R.
Both games have problems with steering and controlling Sonic's speed, and Sonic R is horrible compared to other racing games of its time like Lego Racer, Mario Kart 64, Star Wars Episode 1 Racer. I... can't really think of a good reason why I like those two games. Maybe I just like the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaSH2yCU6qY) music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY9m2sHQwLs)?

[russdm]

I have Neverwinter Nights 2 plus first expansion and I have barely started so far. Picked up Khelgar, our dwarf friend and visiting a swamp cave by the inn. I find the game fun, and for expansion laughs I picked Kelemvor for the deity for character. Playing a half-elf rogue, picking up some fighter levels and others. Fun game.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Have a bit of a question regarding Dragon Age: Origins, and figured I'd avoid spamming the boards with another thread:

I just found that the promo items have been given out for free to any game owner, and I unlocked them over on BioWare's social page. But when I boot the game up, it says Download Failed. What did I do wrong?

And on the subject of a sucky game that I like: Neverwinter Nights 2. That is all.

EA's servers might be down or the application might not be able to connect to them.

[Tylorious]

Sucky game that I like. Two Worlds that is all.

EDIT: I just discovered that FF2 (japan) is considered one of the worst by some and I absolutely love that game.

[Hunter Noventa]

Sucky game that I like. Two Worlds that is all.

EDIT: I just discovered that FF2 (japan) is considered one of the worst by some and I absolutely love that game.

the big issue with that game is that, well, while the leveling system makes sense as an idea, the way it's implemented leaves something to be desired. Getting better at something by using it makes sense for weapons and magic...not so much for HP.

[warty goblin]

the big issue with that game is that, well, while the leveling system makes sense as an idea, the way it's implemented leaves something to be desired. Getting better at something by using it makes sense for weapons and magic...not so much for HP.

HP never makes any freaking sense anyway. How you get more of the stuff is really the least of any given system's problems, sensewise. It's just all part of the RPG number treadmill anyway; gotta keep making those numbers higher or the monsters will get ahead.

[Nerd-o-rama]

HP never makes any freaking sense anyway. How you get more of the stuff is really the least of any given system's problems, sensewise. It's just all part of the RPG number treadmill anyway; gotta keep making those numbers higher or the monsters will get ahead.

Yeah, but in FF2 it's less a matter of sense and more one of being incredibly inconvenient and/or abuseable from a gameplay standpoint (mostly abuseable, really).

[Avilan the Grey]

HP has always been an abstract sum of the following in RPG (both tabletop and CRPGs):

1. Health
2. Armor
3. Skill

Meaning, you don't REALLY become "meatier", what it means is that you are better at avoiding serious injury by ducking, parrying etc.
A good way of explaining it is also that a miss, in games like Dungeon and Dragons isn't really a miss, but a blocked or ducked attack, and only a critical miss / fumble is an actual MISS.

This is of course better implemented in tabletop, since in most CRPGs, all you see is you getting hit in the face with a maul and shrug it off.

[warty goblin]

HP has always been an abstract sum of the following in RPG (both tabletop and CRPGs):

1. Health
2. Armor
3. Skill

Meaning, you don't REALLY become "meatier", what it means is that you are better at avoiding serious injury by ducking, parrying etc.
A good way of explaining it is also that a miss, in games like Dungeon and Dragons isn't really a miss, but a blocked or ducked attack, and only a critical miss / fumble is an actual MISS.

This is of course better implemented in tabletop, since in most CRPGs, all you see is you getting hit in the face with a maul and shrug it off.

I wouldn't even say HP works as an abstraction of anything particularly well, since thinking about it representing anything always leads to some form of stupidity or other. It's a simple metric for how close you are to losing, that's it.

[Closet_Skeleton]

1. Health
2. Armor
3. Skill

You missed out luck. Armour is also usually a different system and not part of HP.

Monster hp is usually based on mass as well, but PC hp works differently somehow.

Usually PC hp is more of a stamina system representing how long you can fight before you stop being able to.

[Wookieetank]

Sucky game that I like. Two Worlds that is all.

EDIT: I just discovered that FF2 (japan) is considered one of the worst by some and I absolutely love that game.

I'll second Two Worlds. I enjoyed it enough to get Two Worlds 2 at launch. Haven't beat single player yet, but my brother and I had loads of fun tearing through the Multiplayer bits as mages. The magic system in that game is quite fun, and the level of custimization possible with spells is neat.

Tornados Hurling Anvils? check. Multishot fireball where each turns into a firestorm upon contact? check. Traps that heal the party and can be spammed onto the ground to make everyone near invincible? check. :smallbiggrin:

[Aolbain]

Being an unrepentant Biodrone I actually liked ME3 and DA2 but for some reason I can't bring myself to not hate Skyrim. Properly because it stole 150 hours of my life.

[Tylorious]

the big issue with that game is that, well, while the leveling system makes sense as an idea, the way it's implemented leaves something to be desired. Getting better at something by using it makes sense for weapons and magic...not so much for HP.

what happens when you break your bone and it sets properly? It gets stronger at the very specific spot. That's what I say to help myself believe in the system of FF2 :P

[Hunter Noventa]

Being an unrepentant Biodrone I actually liked ME3 and DA2 but for some reason I can't bring myself to not hate Skyrim. Properly because it stole 150 hours of my life.

I think most people liked ME3 up until the very end, I know I did.

[Wookieetank]

I think most people liked ME3 up until the very end, I know I did.

And some weirdos (like myself) even enjoyed the ending. :smallbiggrin:

[Logic]

I think most people liked ME3 up until the very end, I know I did.

I hadn't finished the game when I heard about the controversy concerning the ending. So I went into the ending expecting it to be terribad. When I got to the ending, I didn't like it, but I didn't think it was that big of a deal. But the more I thought about it, the more I didn't like the ending, and especially didn't like the choices presented at the end.

Despite the bad ending, it doesn't color my perception of the game as a whole.

[Avilan the Grey]

And some weirdos (like myself) even enjoyed the ending. :smallbiggrin:

Indeed. Of course I mean the final product (Leviathan + EC). I never even started the game before the EC was available.

[Wookieetank]

Indeed. Of course I mean the final product (Leviathan + EC). I never even started the game before the EC was available.

Never played Leviathan myself, but the EC is my only experience with the endings. And with the starbrat bit, wasn't terrible surprised by there being more reaperness to the citadel, particularly after ME1 and I'll leave it at that.