Kierkegaard

God. This mission. So glad to have people's shared pain to feel less shitty about how terrible I am at this. I'll eat some pizza and give it another shot--non lethal should be viable throughout, I swear to god.

Beat it. Sandstorm and nightvision and turning the sound down and listening to a podcast. Fun stuff. That cutscene? Eh. Noble sacrificing the only female character when she finally gets some development--tropey.

Yeah, it was weird how much of that was shown in trailers. But at least it seems like we've seen very little of this game past the first four hours based on what I've played.

@gaspower: Fair, to be more precise: the move she makes of leaning directly over your eyeline to change a sheet on the other side is, well, purposefully in there. Snakes be pervy with women. Well established. Still not a great opening choice.

@nigeth: What an astute and thoughtful argument against Galak-Z! Good writing. Just thought I'd say that. You set forward what a good roguelike is and clearly showed why Galak-Z, for you, doesn't hit those marks. It's rare to read such a coherent argument and just thought I'd compliment that.

Nostalgia is subjective, since, like you said, it depends on the era you find nostalgia for. For me, 3D platformers or third person action like Ratchet and Clank are where I really started, so anything that appeals to that genre grabs me. And PC adventure games. It being subjective doesn't eliminate it as an idea or a thing that can have good or bad variations. It just means that one cannot assume any piece of media inherently creates nostalgia for every consumer of it.

It seems like you are saying that fourth-wall breaking mockery makes something either bad nostalgia or not nostalgia at all. I haven't played Galak-Z, so I can't comment on that. But I wonder if that criteria is solid. It probably depends on the kind of mockery for me. If it's a loving, this thing was great but also kind of silly, mockery, that seems okay, even preferable to ignoring faults. If it's a patronizing, punching down mockery--yeah, that always sucks.

How do you feel about, say, Banjo Nuts and Bolts? That's actively mocking itself and breaking the fourth wall while also doing something new. Is that successful nostalgia or not?

It's a totally weird issue for a game, right? No other medium has to worry about giving the experiencer too much to do or see. I guess it's impressive that no content in the game is counter to Geralt's character--he's never doing inane, pointless, or evil things--so there's that. But yeah, it puts the onus on us to decide whether Geralt would pursue this thing or not. Experience always seems like a metaphor for, well, experience, so Geralt does benefit from learning more about the world and doing more quests because he becomes better able to make big decisions and fight bad ass monsters. I mean, there's a logic to it of sorts. But I still totally get you. Just don't see it as a major design problem in this game in particular.

@kmfrob: It's a fair point, but I think being Geralt actually makes the side quest structure make more sense. In Skyrim you can define your character as you will, but you don't have any profession until you give it to yourself. You decide to be a mage or a mercenary or a hero or a villain, yeah? And all that freedom makes your character potentially feel unfocused and wandering, or even worst opportunistic, like you exist to fill boxes rather than for some clearer purpose.

Geralt has a goddamn job. He was made into a witcher, and that means he kills monsters and gets paid. Everything else you can choose to do, or Geralt is forced to do by circumstances, or chooses to do for others' sake--all of that has this air of "ugh, fine, I'll help" to it that is really refreshing. Geralt just wants to wander the land, hunt down monsters, be with Ciri, have a significant other, and relax. But stuff keeps interfering. I really like how he is a defined character who does often seem annoyed with menial tasks. And most of the quests in the game give some more interesting context and reasoning, so they make it more than just filler.

It's a different kind of playing for me, one where I'm embodying a more set role and able to make choices within its context rather than being free to be and do anything. It's different, and I like what the game did with it.

I've heard the books are great, and I am intrigued. But that's kind of a challenge of game writing right? The Witcher, in general, did a great job giving me enough context to connect to these characters without playing the other games or reading the books. I guess I prefer the, perhaps, overwritten character building and relationships in DA to the concise and at times spartan approach in Witcher. It felt like I had a few great character moments with Ciri, a few with Yennefer, and one with Cerys, Zoltan, Dandelion etc. I guess the character missions and conversations (which fulminate in DA) felts so enlivening to me, and Witcher felts a bit like I was intruding on a family and trying to figure it out. Dragon Age's explicit discussions of prejudice and active diversity also endear me to it more than Witcher, which clearly says some things about gender, race, and sexuality, but mostly focuses on lives of free wandering vs. lives of political or spirtual power, at least in my reading. All good, but Dragon Age grabbed me more with what is there.

I voted on storytelling for Dragon Age. World and Gameplay, easily Witcher. But while I like Ciri and Geralt a lot, I think I feel a little distant from the Witcher characters, like their true selves are hiding, while Dragon Age is explicitly about delving into who a diverse range of people are and talking to them about big ideas and feelings in their lives. Ultimately, I feel like I know Sarah and Dorian way better than anyone in The Witcher, and that makes the games' shortcomings disappear. Will I go back to The Witcher now that it's over? For sure! But I'm endeared to Dragon Age in a wholly different and more powerful way.

Um, is this a break up letter or a job evaluation? Either way, your very serious sounding post is kinda hilarious. A huge part of life is embracing different perspectives. It's unclear to me what in particular you're not into, but try giving it a fair shot. Or, you know, maybe don't pretend to be the Giantbomb family bouncer?

@austin_walker I might never find time to play this game, but your critical and personal review is a good example of why I subscribe to this site and pay way too much attention to video games despite having less time to play them. Games can make us think back on hard times in our lives in new contexts. Games can make us think about human differences and artistic choices. And games can make us think about the balance of mechanical complexity and flow of play. It's great to have you thoughtfully contributing a mindful perspective to the site, Austin. Don't stop being you. You're awesome.

If a philosophy is inherently self-defeating it should probably be rethought. Ethical consumption is also profit-creating in the long term, so capitalism needs to pursue it in order to maintain its existence. Corporations are not people, but the people in charge of them are, and we've seen those people choose to make ethical decisions sometimes. It's possible.