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.
*there's nothing that actually kills/does damage,
*I can micromanage equipment or strategy such that I either won't get hit or can negate all damage,
*I patiently spent a lot of time leveling and now I'm big and bad enough that nothing poses a credible threat, or
I'm not sure they really supported their thesis there, though. I mean:
There is a growing multitude of games that don’t utilize violence as a central mechanic. [...] Telltale Games’ entire catalogue since the release of season one of The Walking Dead has had conversation and social maneuvering as the central game mechanic. Animal Crossing, The Sims, and Minecraft are all worldwide sensations
...doesn't quite mesh with "limiting innovation". It seems like there's a specific subset of games they're really talking about: rpgs.
I wish they'd gone into their argument about it being central to game engines a bit more, maybe with some examples or something. I mean, "animate a believable hug" is at least something that's possible--hugging, specifically, is something Sims can do. So, somebody "figured it out". Is there something about other game engines that makes that especially difficult to animate? (That is a sincere question; I know very little about animation. Though, if there are a variety of body types and/or a variety of shapes of visible wearable equipment, I can see how you'd have to deal with either 1)clipping errors/failure to match up properly (i.e. making a tall person hug a short one might lead to them hugging their head), or 2)the woes of combinatorial expansion as you make separate animations for every separate combination that might come up. Unless you can somehow use collision detection?)
It seems like their actual argument is more specific than the one in the title: that violence limits games that have it as a core mechanic. Which is, itself, an interesting argument.
The big change over the years has been that point and click adventures used to boast some of the most impressive budgets in gaming, whereas now they are far, far away from the AAA-tier. It would be interesting to track over time how much more homogenised the top-budget tier of videogames has become over the years - and how much more homogenised the audience for and producers of such games have become with it.
Wikipedia description: "The story revolves around Shōko Nishimiya, an elementary school student who has impaired hearing. She transfers into a new school, where she is bullied by her classmates. Shouya Ishida, one of the bullies, goes to the point that she transfers to another school. As a result, he is ostracized and bullied himself, with no friends to speak of and no plans for the future. Years later, he sets himself on a path to redemption."
That is... accurate in a very specific sense. Which is to say, the protagonist is Ishida, not Nishimiya. The story revolves around Nishimiya, in the sense that she is a plot device. The book is almost entirely about one or other of them being bullied. There is only one likeable character*, Ishida's mother; everyone else is a loathesome git of one or other variety.
It reminded me forcefully of the kind of stuff I was compelled to read for GCSE English. It may well be the Japanese equivalent.
The art's good!
*Nishimiya might be likeable, if she were a character.
...I wonder why that specific area was painted in the first place, when the rest wasn't.
The problem being he has all the personality of a tapeworm, and as for a B-like-Bolin plan… Bolin. Nuff said. So, it being a law that the heroine has to end up shacked with SOMEone, who else was left ?
( all right, I never watched LoK or AtlA either. I read the plots and followed enough fan comments and flaming to get a pretty good grip on what was happening, though )
Alasdair: Also, guess who just got a review published in Strange Horizons? This guy.
Janne: Congrats for the Strange Horizons thing!
Ditto, great job; a very informative and entertaining review. Most of the way through it, I realized you (or somebody, anyway) were talking up this series in the Playpen a year or two ago; I'm glad to learn a bit more about it.
Like the equalists. It seemed like the problems between the benders and benderless were real enough, with the organized criminals being benders and the police force seemingly being comprised more of benders than not. So abandoning all that and focusing on Amon being just a bloodbending maniac was disappointing.
I still liked the show, it was just disappointing that they never had time to develop things fully. Zaheer was an interesting villain and his use in helping Korra in the end was a good development. That he was defeated in the end by not death, but being forced to recognise that he was wrong and his actions actually made the world demonstarbly worse from his point of view. And I too liked Tenzin and his stoic dignity in a world that was fundamentally too ridiculous for him.
Korra's spiritual development was supposed to be the red string that defined her arc through the seasons, but in the end it did not really work. Korra's discoveries rarely happened through her realising something important, but were too often just her discovering a new power. But this is perhaps a problem that was evident in Atla as well. Aang's chakra being closed and his fear that becoming the avatar meant losing those he loved was not really resolved, by him realising that it does not have to mean that, but his chakra was just opened by that rock hitting his back just right.
Soperhaps this is something the writers struggled with. Perhaps they did not want to make any strong statements that could be understood to be too religious for an adventure show? Curiously Zaheer's enlightenment of sorts was more believable in his villainous arc than anything that Korra worked through. I mean she did grow, but it all happened so abrubtly and was not written well.
With Korra the ballooning cast is definitely a side-effect of the show expanding from a miniseries to a full series. With ATLA, there was always a clear idea of where they wanted the show to go, so they were able to pick a model for their cast and stick to it. There really wasn't such a clear idea with Korra, so we got the season 1 supporting cast tagging along as more and more characters were heaped on, and there was never any satisfactory way of prioritizing the supporting cast.
That said, there was some pretty good stuff with some of the supporting characters. I might be getting old, but I just loved the storylines with Tenzin in seasons 2 and 3, with him dealing with his family, living up to his father's legacy, and trying to be the sole living authority on a culture that went extinct decades ago. Lin is someone who got lost in the shuffle, but once they get her with Suyin and Toph there's a lot of good ol' dysfunctional family drama to be had.
Also, guess who just got a review published in Strange Horizons? This guy.
So if any of you have missed by particular brand of logorrhea, you can enjoy some of it at http://futuristdolmen.wordpress.com. I wrote a giant post about The Legend of Korra over the weekend, and I'd love for someone to come and tell me how wrong I am about everything.
P.S. If you haven't watched the Dishonored 2 reveal trailer yet, stop whatever it is you're doing and go watch the Dishonored 2 reveal trailer.
P.P.S. All hail the Great Uniter.
CRY$TAL WARRIOR KE$HA
That article reminded me of something I found a few weeks back: The Writer Will Do Something, a short bit of interactive fiction where you play as the lead writer on the third installment of a triple-A franchise that is shaping up to be a major shitshow. The story is set in a staff meeting with the lead developers, about six months from release, where the topic of the hour is What Is To Be Done. As it turns out, the fact that you never played the first two games is the least of your problems.
There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in this story. It's a slight exaggeration of how messed up triple-A development can be. The creator, Matthew Burns, has done his time on multiple Halo and CoD titles, and was a freelancer on the the debacle that was Destiny, so there's a lot of disguised personal experience in there. On a more basic level, the story's about the problem of being creative in an working environment that is inimically hostile to the luxuries creativity needs to flourish.
(Oh, and by the by, I found this while I was browsing the discussion for a Let's Play of Watch_Dogs.)
Make's one proud to be Finnish I guess, our boy making a mark on the world in such an insignificant way. Almost as great as when Lordi won the Eurovision, or when we became the champions of the whole world in 1995(in ice hockey). The Lordi thing was kinda cool though. And the 1995 thing did offer an excuse for underage drinking and missing school.
The quality of work on the ballot this year in the short form categories has taken a huge dive from the usual mix of mediocre and not-so-mediocre right into "hang your head in shame for ever liking this" territory. It's straight-up embarrassing, and makes all those complaints about "The Leviathan that thou hast Made" a few years back look positively quaint in comparison .
I agree that the Hugo voters do seem have their perennial darlings - Neil Gaiman, Lois McMaster Bujold, Connie Willis, China Mieville - but would point out that a set of awards given on the basis of sales figures and advertising dollars would probably look very different. Neither Robert Jordan nor George RR Martin have ever won, after all, and the only (?) non-Puppy novel to receive enough nominations to make it past the Puppies this year is Katherine Addison's (nee Sarah Monette) Goblin Emperor, which can't be much of a blockbuster. (I also would never have read Sofia Samatar's A Stranger in Olondria if it hadn't been nominated for a Hugo a couple years back, and it was a really wonderful book from a small press.)