LackingSaint's forum posts

#1 Posted by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

Saved Sarah from the trailer park.

Did not steal from Arvo.

Crawled under the door. (This was apparently a meaningful choice?)

Hugged the baby. (...and this?)

Shot Rebecca.

Man, what a disappointing episode. While the ending was certainly tense and scenes like convincing Sarah at the trailer park were pretty emotionally-stirring, I think overall the game's writing has suffered tremendously as the season has gone on. Beginning with a complete invalidation of the only choice in the entirety of Episode 3 that mattered at all, and then progressing into a meandering conversation about how Rebecca is tired, I kind of already had a bad taste in my mouth. But the kicker had to be the point-blank sudden death of Nick; Nick, who had not one but TWO SEPARATE "IMPORTANT" DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE GOT TO SURVIVE OR NOT, who ended up getting about two scenes of conversation in four episodes, just dead. I thought Nick was interesting, and there were so many things they could've done to make me care about his death. But no, I just had his body thrown in a chain-link fence because they were too lazy to write in an ending scene for a character that could have died earlier in the game. It brings to mind the immediate death of Alvin in episode 3, another storytelling cop-out that completely invalidated your character's actions for the sake of less development time (luckily Alvin died in episode two for me, meaning I didn't have my survival choices be blatantly transparent three times in a row).

The scene at the trailer park made little sense, with the apparent distraction of the honking truck (something an entire scene is based around) just sort of disappearing to facilitate a tense scene, though the interaction with Sarah was a highlight, and signaled the beginning of a much more consistent latter half of the episode; though I really wish we were farther along in character development by the penultimate episode, it was nice to see a little more of the interactions between Luke, Jane, Mike and Bonnie. The Arvo choice was interesting in its parallels with Season 1 Episode 2's ending, though it has its own problems i'll get to later. Finally, the ending was very well-presented, a lot of important moments thrown together to build a very natural but solid conclusion. This was all slightly dampened by the realization that Jane, who had already been disturbingly similar to Molly in both her character motivations and basic traits ("i'm a hardened independent woman who used to take care of her sister but eventually had to leave as forces beyond my control meant I couldn't protect her anymore"), was going to be given the exact same Farewell treatment that Molly got in last season's Episode 4. This frankly just came off as lazy writing, maybe an attempt at drawing parallels but mostly just felt like an "oh this again" moment that took me out of the experience. I'll then throw in how the Arvo choice played out as the other main thing that bugged me with the ending; why was he yelling at me for stealing supplies when I explicitly said I wouldn't steal supplies? You guessed correctly, my choices were invalidated yet again! Turns out no matter what you decide in this "hard choice", Jane steals the supplies and pisses off the bandits. It makes me nervous that the final choice, Shooting Rebecca, will also be completely meaningless to the ending. Considering the streak TellTale has been on lately with this season, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it had absolutely no impact on Episode 5.

Unless they really pull it out with Episode 5, I think i'm done with The Walking Dead Games after this. That really bums me out because I enjoyed the first season tremendously, but too much of this season has felt like aimless, completely unsatisfying busywork. I don't care about characters dying when you haven't let me have more than one damn character-building conversation with them. I don't care about my choices when, without fail, you immediately resolve them to a single "correct" answer. I care about having a goal to strive for, and characters to connect with, and seeing the hope I have slowly get slashed and gnawed at. The Walking Dead Season 2, so far, has had no interest in inspiring the hope that's actually needed to be upset when things don't work out.

#2 Posted by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

Lunatic difficulty on Fire Emblem Awakening might as well be impossible, but I am fully convinced that Lunatic + is ACTUALLY impossible. Wouldn't have minded a difficulty between that and hard, honestly.

Fire Emblem Awakening and XCOM: EU both bummed me out in that beating the hardest difficulty is almost entirely based on getting super-lucky in the early game. You have to take so many huge risks to get anywhere!

#3 Edited by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

Jak 2. Gotta get those Precursor Orbs, man.

#4 Posted by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

Keeping the story interesting, mostly. Most game protagonists are male already so if I picked male by default in every RPG, i'd only get game stories with female protagonists like 5% of the time.

#5 Edited by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

Likely any day would work for me, there's a good chance I can make it to this one! Live Q&A for the guy who made that dumb Enjoy Your Massage animation over here.

#6 Edited by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

I enjoyed the episode. I guess I was hoping for a Walking Dead-style gut punch, or at least a return to how superb the WAU premiere was, but this had some very cool moments (As a comic reader, I got pretty pumped when I saw Bigby charging up his Huff'n'Puff).

@gunslingerpanda said:
@bacon said:
@gunslingerpanda said:

As for the Nerissa/Faith thing... Why does it even matter? Faith is still the dead one, and Nerissa already told us that she was manipulating Bigby all along. It was a hamfistedly delivered twist for the sake of a twist, and it would have been far better had it been delivered with subtlety rather than "HEY REMEMBER ALL THE THINGS NERISSA AND FAITH SAID HEY THEY WERE KIND OF SIMILAR DO YOU GET IT YET DO YOU?"

2. Narissa was is the dead one, not Faith. Faith is glamoured to look like Narissa now.

My broader point was that it doesn't matter; regardless of who it is, the one we've been interacting with the whole time - presumably Faith, then - is still alive, and the dead one is still dead. And the fact that it's so easy to get it confused just works in favour that it should have been a more subtle point.

Another point:

Episode 1: Huntsman survives an AXE TO THE HEAD.

Episode 2-4: "Fables are really hard to kill, guys!" "You can't kill Fables easily!" "It takes a ton to kill a Fable!"

Episode 5: Georgie bleeds out from a stab to the stomach... And even if there's a "SURPRISE! I DIDN'T DIE!" moment in Season 2, we're supposed to believe that George and Bigby both thought he would die despite Huntsman SURVIVING A FUCKING AXE TO THE HEAD.

The more I think about it, the more utterly dismayed I am at the lazy writing of this episode.

Sorry for the late reply, but this argument bothers me; they underline several times in the game that the survivability of a Fable is tied to their fame and the qualities they are famous for. While Georgie's little rhyme isn't super-obscure, the Red Riding Hood story is one of the most well-known fables there is, and within that story the Woodsman is a powerful, heroic man who ends up being the only one able to kill the Wolf. Georgie Porgie... kissed some girls and then ran away when dudes showed up. It's really not comparable. Also, how does Episode 3 clarify that it's tough to kill a Fable when you can literally kill a Fable in that episode with relative ease? I don't think anything in Episode 2 even relates to fable survivability.. Sounds less like lazy writing on their end and more like an over-reaction on your end because you forget a piece of information you were told in the narrative several times.

#7 Posted by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

If they walk up to me and directly ask for some change, sure. If they start following me around and harassing me, hell no. Luckily, i've never had the latter happen to me so it's not a problem.

#8 Edited by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

The first two Jak & Daxter games. Probably mostly because I obsessively played them as a child, but I just have the perfect muscle memory for them now and it makes me feel wonderful whenever I replay them. I think Jak 3 can get a little tedious because of the less consistent pacing, and I don't have as much fondness for Jak X (it's still pretty good) or The Lost Frontier (fuck you).

Funny story about the first game: It was my first PS2 game, and I got it before I even knew I needed a Memory Card. So for about half a month this was the routine;

  1. Get home from school.
  2. Get about two-thirds of the way through the game
  3. Go to bed, leaving console on
  4. Mom turns off the console overnight, because of the constant whirring noise
  5. Rinse, repeat
#9 Edited by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

You really think a year into the generation this question is still relevant? I mean in the transition period, when the Wii-U was out but not the PS4 or Xbox One, sure I can get behind not really being sure if they can all be grouped together or not. But in mid-2014, from an industry and consumer standpoint, the Wii U is clearly a next-gen console. People could say "Well it isn't up to par technologically" but that has never ever been the thing that defines whether or not a system is a part of its generation.

#10 Edited by LackingSaint (1771 posts) -

@dox516 said:

Also why is there not more transgender, gay, one legged, unicycle riding, dwarves, who hail from Uganda, and practice Kabala characters in games? I would consider myself a feminist in that I believe in equality for the genders.

Can we collectively stop this shit right here? Like I can see where you're coming from with some of your arguments, but this whole hyperbolic SJW-parody thing where people start by saying perfectly reasonable requests like more gay or transgender characters in games, and then try to make the argument seem ridiculous by putting that alongside crazy requests nobody has every asked for; it's just the most lazy kind of argument, or joke, there is. You're not just completely misinterpreting the arguments of the other side, you're actually equating having gay characters to having one-legged Ugandan unicyle-riding characters in terms of "HOW CAN YOU EXPECT A DEVELOPER TO BE SO INCLUSIVE?" There's a lot of gay people. There's a lot of transgender people. Gay people get very little representation in this medium, trans people almost none. It's just such a baseless, senseless one-liner.

On an unrelated note, fuck "artistic vision" as a defense for having 90% of your cast be straight white men. I'm primarily a fiction writer and storyteller, and you know what I do when I look back over a story i've been working on an realise I just happened to make every single main character a straight white dude? I just change one of those things for characters it makes sense for. It honestly doesn't need to affect that much about the character in most cases, and it just avoids the boring monotony of only having characters that i've projected my own "group" onto (as many writers do).