* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jan 3, 2020, 18:24.

Sepharo wrote on Dec 31, 2019, 13:59:
I know this is usually a gaming cliche/insult but...
Maybe some of you just suck at the game watching TV and movies.
It really isn't that confusing, I feel like some of you are that friend who watches all of Mandalorian and then is like "Wait that's not Yoda? This is after the old SW movies?"

That's some stellar contributing there Lou.

Go check out the critical reviews. They all agree that the narrative is muddled and hard to get into. The glowing user reviews are by and large all previous fans of the series. It's not a controversial point of view.

And Christ... how many times do I have to say I LIKED THE SEASON. Goddamn snowflakes can't stand constructive criticism. Y'all need to get a life.

Xero wrote on Dec 31, 2019, 12:48:
I can second all of that. Granted I'm only up to episode 6 and have been enjoying each one however I was only familiar with Witcher 3 and not the books. With that said, the timeline jump up while watching up to episode 3 ... until someone at work told me about it, I had no idea.

Rewatching back episode 1-3 knowing about the timeline jump and turning on subtitles helps so much. There is a lot that might not be properly heard or missed and there are so many details that it's easy to get lost quickly. I was basically the guide for my wife watching it with me who has no idea what the series is about and for someone with no knowledge, they will find it VERY hard to get into the show. There is no hand holding for non-fans of the books or games.

I think that ultimately will hurt them. One guy at my job turned off episode 1 within 30 minutes stating he was bored as hell not knowing what they were talking about. My sister said her boyfriend fell asleep in episode 2 completely clueless and uninterested. I think that's a key factor. They kind of failed to grab the mainstream audience that has no clue what the series is about because they are really targeting the show towards the readers or gamers (primarily the readers).

It is not a mainstream viewer friendly show. Very hard to get into if you have no idea what you are getting into.

My earnest advice is to go watch episode 3 *first*. I think you spoil Yennifer's transformation in that episode which blows and honestly is confusing AF if you start there, but the striga story is Geralt's life up to the prophecy that he gets at Blakvian. If someone could do like a mini-cut of just the striga story it'd work pretty well. Actually, the opening cinematic for The Witcher from CDPR would work pretty well.

In fact... here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntjv4jdwmCM

Tell them to spend 8 minutes watching this. Warn them that this is a mild spoiler for one of the episodes but it will set the *entire* universe up so much better. Then have them go watch the series.

Fion wrote on Dec 31, 2019, 12:34:

the time-jumping plotlines is *poorly* handled...

Remember when Westworld had all these time jumps that didn't always make sense in the moment and everyone was talking about how amazing the show was because it didn't lead you by the hand and instead relied on the viewers ability to figure out what was going on, what the rules of the show and the universe were.

Funny how just a few short years later another show does that and some people fucking hate that they have to figure out the time jumps and the rules of the universe, how magic works, etc.

GTFO the reason why the two (and yes, TWO timelines not three or four or however many there technically were in Witcher, you can make an argument) worked explicitly because we were experiencing the world through the eyes of the hosts (specifically Dolores) which explicitly did not have a concept of linear time because they got memory wiped constantly.

Witcher doesn't have that unreliable narrator character in it, all it's characters have perfectly fine concepts of linear time and it's editing and writing and directorial choices that are substandard that muddy the water needlessly.

Part of that is the original source material really wasn't laid out in any linear time. They were like stand alone fairy tales and short stories that sort of kind of formed a narrative once you were done with all of them. But the writers/directors/editors decided not to drain the swamp of *any* ambiguity, and knowing what I know about the books, there isn't a purpose for that like there is in Westworld.

It's funny ultimately you bring up WW because they manage to convey both thematic ideas and narrative ideas pretty efficiently in season 1. They drain the swamp of ambiguity where necessary so we get onto the ideas they're expressing and can muddle over the parts they want to us to ponder. The initial concept is straightforward- robots provide a LARP experience that's as real as possible. We quickly find out that it's structured like a video game. Once we establish those basics, the show starts to build complexity onto that scaffold.

The writing staff on Witcher haven't matured yet and they're starting with an extremely complex beginning and it shows. WW and Game of Thrones and well built complex shows start out with simple ideas and build the complexity onto them after audiences buy in. Witcher started out with complexities and waited until episode 3 before you really saw the basic underlying concept of what a Witcher does in action (Okay, opening shot you see some action, but I don't count Blakvian as witcher work. Nor does Geralt). Ep 2 introduces Yennifer and Jaskier, and you get the elven hostage storyline (which again feels out of place because Geralt hasn't earned his sense of alienation with us quite yet). It isn't until Ep 3 that we get the Striga story (and it's an *excellent* episode), which is, incidentally, how CDPR decided to introduce Geralt to us and I *want* to say it's also the first story in The Last Wish. It is the first time we see witcher work from beginning to end and it's arguably where we're finally introduced to Geralt the witcher and we establish the basic loop of the story that we've already been building on for 2 episodes now. One method of storytelling works to bring in audiences, the other doesn't.

Also go away on me criticizing the magic. In any long-running show, and the showrunners for Witcher want to do at *least* 7 seasons they said, shows have to be internally consistent to their own logic. *Especially* in their first season when they are picking up the majority of their audience. I can go back knowing the "twist" of Westworld season 1 and the show remains largely internally consistent. Witcher? The first fucking lesson about magic we learn is that it requires lifeforce to enact. "Sometimes the best thing a flower can do for us is die" remember that? Because the writers sure as fuck forget it. They show that lifting a stone a foot off the desk literally withers your hand to a husk and then you *never* see magic exacting that kind of toll again and you get no explanation why.

They also show some of Geralt's sign magic but never explain that either. Yen asks about it but then they play coy and duck out of the way instead of explaining that sign magic is different and more limited than Yen's version of magic.

I *like* the show but it's blatantly obvious that it was written for people who are already fans. The buy-in is steep when you're trying to keep straight Cintra and Blakvian and the eleventy bajillion polish-derived country and character names and monster names and setting and subversions of traditional fantasy tropes. Throwing on top of it 3 muddled timelines, an in-universe inconsistent ruleset for magic, and hinting at but never fucking getting around to explaining setting related questions like "what is a witcher capable of?" and something's gotta give. You need either prior experience/a primer to get into the show or a steep, steep buy in.

And I even said that moving forward those complaints should improve because the narrative cues that we can use to tell where in time we are become more clear.

Slashman wrote on Dec 30, 2019, 21:53:

Muscular Beaver wrote on Dec 30, 2019, 19:17:
Probably because the series isnt that great.

GTFO of here. The series is awesome.

The series is problematic in it's first season structure. I read all the goddamn books and the time-jumping plotlines is *poorly* handled. Unless you're paying close attention it's hard to tell that decades pass before you get to Cintra falling. I mean... Dandilion Jaskier throws away a line with Geralt in the Last Wish or whatever it's called in the show about how it's been 10 years since he's seen Geralt last or met him or something like that. We don't even get the joke that Geralt names *all* his horses Roach, although it's implied that if we're seeing like 40 years of time pass (or at least around 20) that Geralt probably has had multiple horses.

Also, we see Geralt drinking potions, but it's never established that these are special potions and one of the reasons *why* he was mutated. I guess we'll find that out over time in the series, but a lot of the texture of what a witcher is is shown but not related to the viewer. At this point, you need knowledge beforehand.

Usually I'm in favor of trusting audiences to be intelligent enough to get what's going on, but in this case, some year and location cards would help a lot. Even sticking with "A long time ago" "some time ago" and "Now" would have worked a *lot* to keep the 3 timelines working concurrently. Either that or color motifs, or something.

The up shot though is that unless they are pants-on-head retarded, the storytelling should get more straightforward in season 2. Geralt has met Ciri and Yen will be involved, so that timeline is easier to track. If you see Geralt alone or with Yen but they never mention Ciri, you're in the past. Same with Yennifer.

Otherwise the series was solid, at times good. I like the Striga story, it was well done, I also like most of the story updates the writers did. The one where the elves capture Geralt felt highly abbreviated, although it's been 10 years since I've read the book. Cavill makes a great Geralt, and I really, really wish we could see him as Witcher 3 Geralt, grizzled, white beard, and a little more rounded than his earlier days.

I also appreciate that there's enough nods to the video game, usually visually, to make game players feel closer to home.

They've kind of butchered the internal logic of magic however. They established early on that it requires life force to do something as simple as lift a stone, but we see mages do all kinds of shit without killing off the life around them (which would be badass- that's Dark Sun's defiler mages) or withering like a flower. I get that too much magic does physical damage to mages once they get out of their training, but they need someone to really manage the continuity of what their magic can and can't do.

Overall, it feels like it's a hit with existing fans, but I have trouble recommending it to new viewers without some kind of primer, and that's just bad writing and if anything will be what kills the series off.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Dec 30, 2019, 17:48.

I find this game to be strangely calming and fun, especially when I have podcasts or audio books to catch up on, but I drive for a living, and it just feels... weird... to play a game about driving when i drive hundreds of miles a week already.

Still, I should catch up on the states here that are on sale and give it a go again. I patch the PC into my big screen TV and use a comfy chair and my driving wheel rig and it's good times.

Ravenus wrote on Dec 18, 2019, 03:21:
How true is the non-linear story and unique experience? Is it just small detours leading back to the same road or is there a marked degree of difference achieved?

I"d say minor. The story is about 90% the same, and different characters are rolled up as replicants or not at the beginning of the story.

It's still worth a go though. Lot of fun.

"Well gosh. Kind of a lot's happened since then."

If Star Citizen gets pregnant I give up.

Linthat22 wrote on Nov 24, 2019, 16:43:
I think I spent a little over $300 on this kickstarter. During the first year things were getting released I uninstalled the game due to massive updated patches and haven't looked back since. My thinking is, once my kid hits double digits, it might be ready. If not......no big deal. Maybe by retirement age? Who knows lol

I dropped... *checks kickstarter* 60 dollars and I feel like I got ripped off. In theory, sometime before the heat death of the universe I'll get Squadron 42. Assuming that the ice cube thermal dynamics simulators work out the way they were intending.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 24, 2019, 19:25:
This game could have really benefited from an Agile software development approach: build out your minimum viable product, ship it, and add on to it from there. Frontier took this approach with E:D, and it has created much player satisfaction.

What's nuts is that Frontier is *still* shipping content updates years after launch for the cost of the regular game plus Frontiers. You'd have though they would kick out at least 1-2 more paid content expansions but nope. Apparently people *really* like the cosmetics store.

I've been really looking forward to this. I will be on a business trip when it launches but this might be a launch purchase for me.

I... uh... Half those screenshots I could barely tell the difference between the overhaul and the original. A few I literally couldn't tell the difference.

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 15, 2019, 14:33:
COD is more of a PVP game now though, isn't it? Is this Star Wars game going be a big PVP game?

The latest COD game is apparently a shitshow in PvP. Echoing loud footsteps and overpowered individual guns have basically turned the map into a Camping Carl festival.

Company of Heroes 2 is great, my only complaint is that the core game doesn't feel particularly complete. There's so many microtransactions that it kind of ruined the game for me.

Also Huzzah I finally found out why I'd always change the subject to the 20th anniversary edition of the Dust map from CS. I saved my password for Bluesnews on that thread and it memorized the bloody subject.

I read the Ars Technica review and it struck me as similar to my original impressions of bleh.

However, imagine how fun a hardcore metroidvania Jedi game would be.

VaranDragon wrote on Nov 13, 2019, 11:00:
Im one of the few people who never got into Bioshock. Im talking about the first game here. One of the most overrated pieces of shit to ever be ported onto the PC IMO. I think I must have played it for about an hour tops and then just uninstalled it in frustration.

Apart from the cool "what-if" Ayn Rand setting (which is kind of fucked up in its own way) everything about it screamed console port, and the whole terrible gunplay mechanics combined with the weird plasmid powerups *ugh*

I guess I came into it expecting to be blown away by a spiritual successor to System Shock, however it was nothing even remotely close to that.

So yeah I ignored all the rest of the games that came out after that.

Too bad. You missed one of the better narrative experiences of that decade.

Also, I found the combat generally satisfying and reminiscent of a more polished SS2. The first hour or two wasn't that much fun because of how much hoarding you had to do with both plasmids and ammo, but after a while the game opened up and became *way* more fun.

The Half Elf wrote on Nov 13, 2019, 10:14:
I'm not sure if it was just me, but not sure if I somehow missed a huge part of the story or what in Bioshock Infinite, but the ending made no sense to me on how Booker was the father. And that being said i still need to finish Prey.

Let's see if I can do this quickly...

So... Realize you're dealing with parallel universes here. Lots of them.

So in one universe, Rosalind Lutece does research into quantum mechanics and discovers parallel universes. She reaches out into one universe where instead of being a woman, she was born a man. They learn to communicate with each other, and eventually meet up in the same world via a tear. Comstock uses their technology to peek into the future and into parallel realities (this is what racks his body with cancer and leaves him sterile). Wanting a child, he looks at parallel universes and finds an alternate version of himself, who has a daughter, and lots of gambling debts. He pays off Booker, takes the daughter, and as you see, the daughter's pinky is cut off as the tear closes. Because Elizabeth's body is occupying 2 universes at once she can create tears. Probably. They never make that explicit.

Edit: An important thing about tear jumping is that eventually your memory changes and kind of molds to the reality you've jumped to, leaving two memories of the same "timeline". When you have two memories of the same event, you get the nosebleed as one of them takes precedence over the other. But the important part to remember is that you *can* forget when you play with tears, timelines, and parallel universes.

So Booker/Comstock. In Booker's youth, he was accused of being part native american and having divided loyalties. So he was particularly bloody and ruthless against the native americans he fought with. He also participated in the Boxer rebellion. All this bloodshed and really, really vicious fighting left him guilt-ridden. And so he came to a point of decision. A priest offered to baptize him and cleanse him of his sins. Every decision point in every life in this game leads to multiple parallel universes. Eventually this branches out into infinity.

So there are 2 main branch bundles to the timeline at this point. In one, Booker rejects religion and stays Booker, becomes a gambling drunk, has a daughter, becomes a Pinkerton. (Or any number of variants on this story. But the important thing to remember is, in all of these parallel universes Booker rejects religion).

The other bundle of timelines, Booker accepts the baptism and religion and finds god and becomes an evangelical. He changes his name to Comstock. In one of the timelines of this branch bundle, he meets Lutece, uses her technology to build both Columbia and the ability to look into the future/past/parallel universes. Doing this however leaves him sterile and wracked with cancer. But he's had a premonition that his movement and his progeny will at least firebomb New York if not take over America/the world. So he uses the Lutece technology to find a timeline where he has a child. And so he peeks at the Booker timeline bundle where Booker has a daughter, and makes Booker a deal to trade the girl to wipe away the debt.

The Luteces eventually discover the New York firebombing thing, and I"m simplifying but agree to send Elizabeth back to her original timeline. So they go to that timeline and hire Booker, again in debt, to "Bring them the girl". So he's unwittingly going to go rescue his own daughter.

Eventually Elizabeth figures all of this out and realizes the only way to stop Comstock, *really* stop Comstock and all the parallel realities that lead to the NYC firebombing is to stop *all* the Comstocks. However, as soon as Booker is Baptized, an infinite number of parallel realities branch out from there involving Comstock.

Therefore, the only way to *stop* Comstock is to stop the baptism. But just stopping Booker from getting baptized in that one instance doesn't prevent Comstock. In an infinite number of realities, something happens and Booker becomes Comstock anyway. So the only solution is to go back through the timelines of the infinite parallel realities to the point where there *is* no Comstock, which is just prior to the baptism, and kill Booker.

This is why Elizabeth drowns him in the river. But as a side effect, if Booker dies, Elizabeth is never born. Which is why after he dies all the versions of her disappear.

I *think* that's the most plain that I can make this. I'm not even getting into all the reality-jumping that happens in the game and if Booker is corrupting Elizabeth (each jump takes you to a world that's more grim than the last as Bookers' cynicism rubs off on Elizabeth. She says the Tears are sort of a wish fulfillment so she's jumping to places that she has influence over), nor am I getting into some of the other fuzzy stuff. There's some bad writing here and a few gaps in the story, but hopefully that answers your questions.

phinn wrote on Nov 11, 2019, 13:46:
After the disaster that was Diablo 3 this looks awesome. The dark atmosphere is more like Diablo 1, classes and story more like Diablo 2, and kept some of the Diablo 3 gameplay elements. Basically the best of everything is going in to this.

Can't wait for Diablo 4, sadly it's probably still years away.

(To the haters and naystayers, you are wrong. This will be spectacular and Blizzard is not going to have any pay to win micro-transasctions they've never done anything to point in that direction even with OW being supported for years.)

I'm underwhelmed personally. Hopefully it's fun but I suspect it'll just be more of the same old shit.

Simon Says wrote on Nov 11, 2019, 13:12:
"Diablo IV will be the new era for Diablo and will be a game as a service."

*WARNING WARNING WARNING*

Oh FFS did I just wake up in 2002 or something this morning?