Ihmishylje's comments

  • 32 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Edited by Ihmishylje

@squidracerx: I think it might be, to a degree, a defence mechanism on Jeff's part. He said stuff like that scared him as a kid. I don't know, I'm just going from my own experiences. I had a very over-active imagination as a child and I got terrible nightmares very easily from even moderately scary movies. So growing up, perhaps at least partly unintentionally, I learned to not suspend my disbelief in those kinds of situations.

Maybe now I'm less defensive about that stuff. These days I think I tend to avoid horror because I just find it thoroughly uninteresting so often that I'm not really willing to look for the good stuff. Most horror just isn't very well done, from an adult's point of view. It's almost like porn. If you can ignore a lot of the crappy acting and storytelling, you can still use your imagination to get off on the set-ups for the scenes.

I think it also varies from person to person. I have a friend who simply can't play any horror games because he's just scared shitless so easily.

But I agree with the sentiment that to think horror is something childish we should have outgrown is about as silly as thinking that we should have outgrown comedy. Maybe some types of horror, but not all horror.

Posted by Ihmishylje

God I miss Vinny (and even Patrick).

Dan seems like a nice guy, but my honest feeling is that this podcast has lost some serious IQ points since he joined.

Yes Jeff shares some of this tendencies, but he has a self awareness that makes it acceptable and even funny. For instance understands the ridiculousness of wresting and would only bring it up on occasion, usually in a self-deprecating way.

Dan on the other hand shows complete confidence in his ignorance on an ever expanding number of topics. Who doesn't have time to wash a god damn knife, but spends an entire weekend watching GI Joe and wrestling??? Brad's shock is palpable and Drew mostly keeps quiet while Dan Palin just drones on and on about nonsense.

I REALLY hate to be this critical and character assassinate in a public place, but if this was my podcast I would want the feedback. Honestly when we got the part about throwing out a fucking plastic knife every time he needs some peanut butter I started to wonder why I am wasting time listening to this podcast.

The reason I love Giantbomb and it's been my favorite podcast for 5 years is that it's always been smart guys doing dumb stuff. I suspect others feel the same way. Losing Vinny and Patrick left big holes and Dan not only hasn't filled them, but has gone completely in the other direction. I feel like a serious threshold has been crossed in the last few weeks. I'm not sure how much more I am interested in hearing.

Once again, sorry to sound like an asshole.

Well said.

Posted by Ihmishylje

I dunno, even if it is just his shtick, Dan's whole "manchild" thing is already starting to wear kinda thin for me. I'm sure he's not a bad guy or anything just... not really what I wanna listen to.

Which, y'know, it's their Bombcast to do with as they please. More power to 'em. Just realizing how much I really do miss Vinny, Patrick, and Ryan, though.

Yup.

Posted by Ihmishylje

@atwa said:

Looks really bad to me. I hate the look of it, it looks so cartoony compared to the medieval themed art style of the first game. Its very clear that they are making an action game, they try to say that you can play tactical but its clearly an afterthought. And with games like Divinity and Pillars of Eternity the revitalization of CRPG is now. Inquisition just doesn't rate. At least for those looking for a real RPG.

Bioware has just lost it completely to me. Sadly.

I think criticism of change in visual style Is completely valid, but also just a matter of taste. The first one wasn't exactly going for photorealism, it was pretty... non-descript? The second one gave the series a far more distinct, if a bit more cartoonish, style. I think this is just an evolution of that.


But "a real RPG"? I think "CRPG" is a fine enough term because it denotes something very specific, mechanically, but "RPG" has not, and cannot, ever mean just Infinity Engine games. It's a very broad field of gaming, and video games are only one part of that. Trying to imply that the term means a single style of videogame (that's barely even a genre) is incredibly misleading... and also just annoying to those of us, to whom roleplaying just means roleplaying.

@andrewb said:

I'm just glad that games like Divinity are picking up where Bioware left off when it came to storytelling and tactical gameplay. Regardless of how good this game turns out to be overall, it just isn't the type of game I want to play.

When you allow a game to be played and beaten by controlling one character in real-time with button-presses, it isn't possible to also be the type of game that requires pausing, character placement, and teamwork to win in a battle. Those two ideas are at odds. The only way to achieve that is to artificially change the level of difficulty for those people wanting to play the game in a tactical way, and I haven't seen that work well in any Dragon Age game.

How's the storytelling looking bad here? I'll give you that DAII's end was disappointing and the game was rushed overall, and not everybody was happy with the direction Bioware took ME3's ending in (I thought it was fine, if surprising... which isn't necessarily a bad thing). But what exactly about the story here makes you think they aren't going back to their (fairly strong) roots of storytelling? Mind you, Bioware stories have never been amazing, but they've been told really well, for the most part.

Tactical gameplay (as far as that means extensive pausing/turn-based gameplay) was never a draw for me in Bioware games, but I can see that some people will find the direction Bioware has taken with the series. They're clearly trying to provide those elements to the "old school CRPG" fans but the focus is elsewhere. I don't mind, I'd rather see them go more in the action direction (Witcher 2, or, y'know, why not even go full action as long as there's loads of customization).

The Dragon Age series is a sad tale. The original was built and marketed as a revitalization of and re-imagining of a Baldur's Gate style game. And they were fairly successful as far as I can tell.

Then they decide that market isn't big enough, lets try and do a total 180 and catch the 3rd person action crowd... In one year. A complete cock-up in almost every way. Conceptually all the way to execution.

Now the question is, who is this game made for? If it's another half-assed 3rd person action title, you can count me out.

I can't blame them for not making a series that's entirely focused on nostalgia and reverence of old Black Isle/Bioware games. If it was any other medium, be it books, movies or music, or whatever, no one (reasonable) would blame the authors for not making the same thing over and over again for their entire career. Some people want to do that and sometimes even successfully gets away with that, but it's pretty rare.

Also, as a AAA game series they're clearly going for the Skyrim crowd, just like the Witcher is. Whether they succeed at it, by which I mean bringing in some of that Bioware magic, remains to be seen. The Witcher will probably be better storywise, so what has Bioware got going on for them? It's definitely not combat (nor has it ever been, in my opinion). But I remain cautiously optimistic, even if it's not the Witcher, it might still be pretty good.

Edited by Ihmishylje
@ripelivejam said:

@brettuss said:

If Drew ever leaves, all that is left is a black hole of jaded cynicism.

and Exaggeration of the Year Award goes to...

To be fair though, Vinny and Patrick have, for a while, been the most open-minded about games and have generally exuded a sense of enthusiasm. I like the rest of the gang, each for their own unique qualities, but since Patrick left the bombcast, Vinny has been basically the one person whose attitude toward games I've enjoyed the most. Sure, every now and then, Brad gets super stoked about one game, but beyond that, what Jeff, Brad, Drew (and Ryan, R.I.P.) bring to the table is something else. They definitely come off as bored and cynical a lot of the time.

Well, ok, Drew doesn't come off as cynical or bored, he just doesn't say that much, about games anyway.

Posted by Ihmishylje
@kiri90 said:

@jackelbeaver said:

is that king guy he's talking to just...Tywin Lanister?

I thought the same thing. It sounds like him!

It most definitely is.

Edited by Ihmishylje

@katsu044 said:

Not hating on the actually trailer because it looks amazing, i just have such a big gripe about the Witchers armor deigns everyone is wearing badass plated stuff while they wear crappy leather/chainmail hope they improved on the loot this time around because the armors in 2 weren't all that different.

The previous games explained that Witchers wear lighter armor because full battle plate is useless against monsters. A blow from a big monster is better avoided with the speed and agility light armors allow. Even against packs of smaller monsters, you need to be quick to avoid being dogpiled and overwhelmed.

I've only played Witcher 2, and don't remember the lore specifics on armors, but that theory would be in line with the lore of the books, I think. In the books at least (I've read the first four) I don't remember there being much talk about Geralt's armor at all. He might be wearing leather armor of some sort or whatever, but what Sapkowski really drives home is that Geralt is an insanely good swordsman, and has only lost in single combat to one person, a mage who was way beyond Geralt's skill and power levels. Although Geralt later kicked his ass too, he had help then.

Geralt has beaten multiple opponents on several occasions, including highly skilled assassins, seemingly with only moderate effort. The books describe him as being lighting fast and very agile, up to the point of moving in fights with what I guess could be described as the grace of a ballet dancer. Witchers have supernatural "mutations" to begin with, further enhanced by elixirs. Genetically, Geralt is an exception even among witchers. With monsters, armor wouldn't necessarily help, and with humans, it would be unnecessary in most situations.

That, or it's just his style of fighting, whatever.

Edited by Ihmishylje

@rachelepithet said:

Can someone timestamp any talk of Demons/Dark Souls, DOTA, League, anime, Drew's type-A hipster self betterment lifestyle activities, Vinny's parenting, Brad's e-sports news and Jeff's complaints about some weekend console update tedium so I can skip them?

Listen to the first 5 minutes and then turn it off.

BOOM

Posted by Ihmishylje

@vinny Packing a degree in physics here, and there are a lot of problems going on with the magnet situation. For starters, Maglev trains do their thang because it reduces/elminates the normal force between train and rail, which eliminates friction. If you were just pushing the pinball machine along the ground, a floor-machine magnet pairing would be nice for the same reason (@jeff knows his shit).

A cart-machine pairing would accomplish nothing, as you'd have the exact same amount of force pushing down on the cart, which would leave the normal force it exerts on the ground (and thus the frictional forces you need to overcome to get the cart rolling) unchanged.

What if the magnets on the floor were strong enough to counter the magnetic field of Earth? Wouldn't they then be able to float the cabinet beyond merely removing friction? Although I'm sure this might cause other minor problems...

Posted by Ihmishylje

@benspyda said:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is way better than I thought it would be. I didn't see it when it was on and it has a sort of strange stigma attached to it. But I've watched a few seasons and its really funny. If you like the humor in Firefly or the Avengers film you'll probably like Buffy and Angel. It's certainly a lot funnier than this shitty game.

Thought I'd make a little PSA for anyone who hasn't seen it after hearing that Brad and Vinny hadn't in the QL.

Not that you will find a shortage of Buffy fans on the internet, but I'd like to chime in on the derailment of this comments section.

I'd like to point out that Buffy isn't really a comedy. It has a strong current of humor pulsing through its veins, but only a handful of the episodes are straight on, broad comedy. Maybe some of the dated special effects, rubber prosthetics etc. may elicit an unintentional chuckle nowadays... but it is mostly a drama, a coming of age story with fantastical elements (or allegories). It started out as a subversion of a tired horror trope, but ended up having very little horror in the mix. It has its action and suspense, but it is mostly about the emotions and the surprisingly deep observations about life in general.

The writing varies from brilliant to hammy, but mostly stays on the sharper side. Here the style of Whedon et al is not as sophisticated, at least not in the first season, as it some years later in Firefly, but it's still very much enjoyable. The storylines may be fantastical, but the characters are very relatable, and the acting is mostly good.

Buffy is one of my all time favorite shows, maybe the dearest of them all. I can't say it holds up perfectly today, or that it's as mature or as consistently high in quality as something like Firefly, but it hit me really hard as a teenager when I watched it originally. Since then, perhaps I get more filled with nostalgia than actual appreciation for quality tv, but it was ahead of it's time in many ways, and has been copied and iterated on by many people, both succesfully and less so.

Most of the things I said about Buffy could be said about Angel as well. It's hero is a more traditional and masculine (90s anti)hero, but the execution really carries it. Later Angel evolved into more of a modern fantasy and melodrama than Buffy probably ever did, but this wasn't a bad thing. It was very self-aware, but not too much to be taken seriously.

I seriously recommend both of these shows to people who are willing to give them a chance beyond the first season. Both shows took about a season and a half to figure out what they were about. That doesn't mean those early episodes don't have gems among them, or that they're not worth watching.

  • 32 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4