Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
Tell me about it. Although the fact that I accidentally deleted my original Shepard has dented my happy somewhat. Am now stuck with my stupid renegade one who I accidentally made look like a duck. Sigh.
Thomsen's primary complaint isn't that this style of gameplay is inappropriate for Dark Souls, or even that this style of gameplay is annoying and overrated, it's that this style of gameplay doesn't give him *insights into the human condition*.
That's sort of what I meant - he brushes up against what I consider some valid points, but while charging madly in the wrong direction.
To be honest, arguments like "it'll help you to learn arbitrary tasks" or "learn to learn by trial and error" don't really convince me, because that's a massively broad field and I'm not sure what transferable skills you could acquire. An encyclopaedic knowledge of enemy attack patterns and vulnerabilities would not have helped in any job or hobby I've encountered. He might learn patience in the face of frustration, but that's about it. It's not nothing, and it's a handy possible side-effect of doing something you enjoy anyway, but it's hardly a reason to play the game. People recommend learning languages or exercising for the concrete benefits, even if you don't enjoy them, but I've yet to hear of anyone urging their citizens or employees to take up gaming. So no, it's not unreasonable, but it's not doing much for me. Anyway, I think I'm all souled out.
i hope the next demon's souls sequel includes readable
books like the elder scrolls series, but they contain paragraphs from war and
peace. reading them all earns you an achievement.
It's funny you mention that, because Thomsen really does seem to view reading books as kind of like grinding for achies in a video game. You engage in a pointless activity for long enough, you get something you brag about, and the aim is to get the maximum amount of bragging rights for the minimum amount of time invested.
Disagreed, though on a general basis rather than having actually played Dark
Souls. Trial-and-error gameplay that relies on losing and reloading (as
opposed to thinking or non-lethal failure) is generally frustrating and just
pads out play.
I think that's a valid personal preference (and one I share) but I don't think it's an absolute statement about Good Game Design. Dark Souls is clearly labeled, advertised and sold as the kind of game where the challenge is to learn the game's mechanics by trial and error (like a much higher budget version of Dungeons of Dredmor), so complaining that the game is designed this way kind of misses the point. I'd be fine with somebody arguing that they don't like this kind of gameplay in general, particularly in the context of a different sort of game, but Thomsen's primary complaint isn't that this style of gameplay is inappropriate for Dark Souls, or even that this style of gameplay is annoying and overrated, it's that this style of gameplay doesn't give him *insights into the human condition*.
I agree that the rebuttal is stupid (learning to play a video game is nothing like learning a foreign language except as the loosest of metaphors) but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that trial-and-error gameplay can teach you something about learning by trial and error (which is itself useful). If Thomsen doesn't understand why "being good at mastering arbitrary tasks quickly" might be an extremely helpful life skill he's never had a job or for that matter a hobby.
I did like Carnival. I don't understand why she's not the protagonist instead of Dill--I also like Rachel, but again she spends most of her time helping out Dill. Why do fantasy writers so much prefer naive, dim, boring young boys over much more interesting people? Apart from "lots of fantasy writers fucking suck" I mean.
But with the great upsets in the third book Martin seems to have written himself into a kind of a corner. Many things that had happened became just background for the real story and a bit shaggydoggish too, and after that the story itself has lost its momentum. I remember that the original intent(well, original at some point, wasnt' this supposed to be a trilogy?) was to do a time skip to let all the kids grow, but as Martin decided there were things he needed to resolve, it has all ground down to an exhausting cavalcade of pointless overtures and exploitative pointless violence.
I'm still interested in finding out what happens, but it is all just so frustrating. I guess there's a point in showing that Daenerys has to learn how to rule, but please, what did it actually accomplish? The last two books didn't seem to move forward at all. And do we really need to be convinced more at this point that the Boltons are not nice folks and that aristocracy is not a good foundation for a state? Or that the Starks were not so nice etc.?
If the winter was to be the point of the whole story, at this point you just want to as: "When do they get to the fireworks factory!?(ie. the ice zombie apocalypse)".
As it comes to Daenerys success as a conqueror, I always assumed that it was Targaryen charisma and magic and dragons combined with luck and good council. It would have been more believable if she was a few years older, like in the tv series.
I mean, at least so far I'll agree that the setting isn't as vibrant as New Crobuzon (and the prose isn't as good as Mieville's, for that matter), but then the book isn't a brick and the plot beats the piss out of Perdido Street Station's meandering monster movie. I don't love Scar Night but it's pretty solid so far. I guess we'll have to talk more once I finish it and move on to the second and third, if you care enough. Seems like we're the only two people here who've heard of Alan Campbell.
I remember quite enjoying the Peace, but not being mad keen on the War. Which is
strange because n a videogame it'd be totally the other way round...
I think I'm the only person I've ever met who preferred the war parts.
KJ Bishop is enormously superior, and she can write, too.
Oh, and thanks for the recommendation. I'll look into Bishop, haven't heard of her before.
About Campbell: the first book I thought was fun if derivative and not particularly strong prose-wise (guy was a game writer; it shows). I kept wanting someone to punch Dill in the face and never stop, he's that kind of character. Then came book two, which was incoherent badly-paced crap. A poor man's new weird, with too much D&D. KJ Bishop is enormously superior, and she can write, too.
Yeah Dill is kind of annoying so far but I'm not that far in...I have the next two books and I hope you're wrong for my wallet's sake, haha. Considering the plot of the first book at least is already better than any Mieville I've read, I'll have to see about your 'poor man's New Weird" appraisal. I'm pretty underwhelmed by the New Weird in general.
I'm not sure I'd say "makes some perfectly reasonable points". I think I'd go with "is completely wrong about everything."Disagreed, though on a general basis rather than having actually played Dark Souls. Trial-and-error gameplay that relies on losing and reloading (as opposed to thinking or non-lethal failure) is generally frustrating and just pads out play. Arbitrary elements like arbitrary resistances and vulnerabilities, or random spellcasting powers, or implausible monster placement, with no narrative basis in the game, are the kind of thing that annoy me as well, and shouting "Bruckheimer!" just excuses poor design. And you can indeed pick up vast amounts of in-game trivia or skill without them having any application in the real world (the Killingsworth response to that in particular was what irritated me).
They're rather disconnected complaints that do nothing to help his main argument, which is frankly rubbish on a fundamental level. They aren't exclusive to games either. There are reasonable rebuttals to at least some of them, which Killingsworth did not make. But the points themselves aren't nonsense, which was what I meant.
Though honestly, I think people bring up W&P as some sort of achievement mostly because of its legendary length.
Agreed - and it's pretty silly since I'm fairly sure at this point both Twilight and Song of Ice and Fire beat it in terms of page count.
Also, you know that person from XKCD who plays Half-Life 2 years after it first came out? That is me. And I've just met fast zombies for the first time. FML.
Pleasant dreams, Andy.
Do I get a cookie? I haven't played Dark Souls, so I can't claim the experience was significantly better.
Though honestly, I think people bring up W&P as some sort of achievement mostly because of its legendary length. I read it because I liked Tolstoy already, and it's pretty easy-going if you don't get hung up on the names. Of which there are many.