Alt+F1: 51 - British GP Prerace
Become Premium to Watch
Her Story is a bold and largely successful experiment in interactive crime fiction.
Rocksteady's gorgeous-looking third Arkham game refines its open-world format a bit and lets you drive a whole hell of a lot of Batmobile.
It's squid kids and ink blasting abound in Nintendo's exceptionally fun new online shooter.
This looks like it'll run on any old piece of shit; is that the case? I might check it out if so.
But Corvo dies at the end of Dishonored...
Eh, the ending to Dishonored (the photo you're referencing) refers to what will happen next and what will happen after he dies. I imagine at the time Arkane had no idea if they'd get to make another one so they might as well wrap it up in a bow while still leaving some wiggle room for a sequel.
I just hope we get to explore the unearthed ancient city that was referenced in the first game. And I really hope that the writing department steps it up in terms of narrative this time.
@jman240: Because Nilfgaard and fuck-off sized Mountains lie between Zerrikania and the Northern Kingdoms. That's the in context, in fiction answer. Zerrikania more or less wants nothing to do with the Northern Kingdoms as the Nordlings are seen as barbaric and a waste of time. As for the out of context, real life answer? I have no idea why Sapkowski didn't include more Zerrikanians in his stories. I have no idea why Geralt never went to Zerrikania, or why so few wound up in the ass end of nowhere (the Northern Kingdoms).
I imagine it has something to do with focusing on stories he wanted to write, about things he knew about, and themes he wanted to explore. Just a hunch, however.
@oldirtybearon: Vikings is about an actual historical period in time. Witcher is about a world with demons, elves and monsters. Not that hard to figure out why they're held to different standards.
Except Vikings slaps the viewer in the face with mysticism and divine intervention at practically every major plot point in the narrative. Just because there are no dragons does not mean it's not fantasy. There are Seers, Prophecies, and other unexplained phenomena rampant throughout the show. Just because it's written well and uses historical context to derive an appealing narrative doesn't suddenly immunize it from the criticisms so many are quick to throw upon the Witcher.
Hell, the Priest Athelstan is assaulted by a dark creature made up of darkness and many gnashing teeth in one scene during a crisis of faith, torn between the Northmen and the Christians. The show handles its fantasy elements very gingerly, but that doesn't mean it's not a part of the story.
@thatpinguino: Except it does, since both Vikings and The Witcher take place primarily in northern lands populated almost exclusively by white people. The wider world still exists, and while the tale told in Vikings is taking place, other shit is happening all across the world. Same goes for The Witcher; the story of Geralt is concentrated on the Northern Kingdoms, which is so far away from other lands and other cultures that it practically exists within its own bubble. It's not a story that takes place all over the world like Game of Thrones, it takes place almost exclusively in Temeria with occasional excursions into nations like Aedirn and Skellige.
The point I'm making, the point anyone is really making, is why can't a story steeped in the culture and folklore of its creators remain authentic to the culture and the folklore. Why must it bend and conform itself to this Americentric view of diversity when that's not the sandbox the narrative plays in?
I've yet to hear a good explanation for all of this or at least one that does not solely depend on "feelings".
I wonder if the television show Vikings has faced this sort of criticism. A show that takes place in Scandinavia and England through 796 AD to 800 AD or so. As you can imagine, the only ethnicities portrayed on the show are Anglo Saxon Christians and Norman Vikings. It's historical fantasy, so it should be subject to the same criticisms being levied at the Witcher, right? I mean, it doesn't matter if the criticisms actually make sense within the context of the narrative as presented.
Or does Vikings get a pass because it shows two very diverse, distinct cultures with their own myths and religions? I can never keep up with these goal posts.
Ok, so obviously I'm over analyzing, but it bugs me that Bethesda's Fallout games are set 200 years after the war that destroyed the world yet it there are still tons of buildings standing, no vegetation has grown back, and people living in the old ruins haven't bothered to sweep up junk that has been there for a couple of centuries (most of which should likely be dust). In the first Fallout games the war was more recent, so it's a little more forgivable.
I know it's just a game, but I feel like this long after the bombs we should have a world closer to "The Last of US", but with fewer buildings left.
I know there were nukes and all, but look at Chernobyl and the areas around it. Wildlife is doing ok, and plants grow (though both are definitely affected by the radiation)
Read "The World Without Us", or watch the National Geographic special "Life After People" for some info on what the world might actually be like at that point.
I don't know if it's charming or naive that you think we as a species could pick ourselves right up by our bootstraps and continue along with where we were after a nuclear holocaust.
People turn into savages when society breaks down. It doesn't even need to be a nuclear holocaust; cut the power off of a city for three days and by the time you turn the lights back on people will have already started eating each other. What you have in this situation is a bunch of worker ants in a spiral of death because there's no queen to tell them what to do. In that context it makes sense that the world would continue to be fucked up two hundred years after nuclear annihilation destroyed the majority of the world.
Society has "collapsed" before. Think of the aftermath of the fall of Rome or any number of civil wars. People don't start eating each other. They naturally organize into groups.I think the stories told in Fallout 3 and New Vegas support this idea. New Vegas is all about power structures reappearing out of the near extermination of life on Earth. People don't regress immediately. They look for ways to stick to their own, organize, and survive.
So yes, I do think people will, at the very least, try to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. There are more advantages in sticking to a small group of trusted people as opposed to targeting everyone around you.
I was thinking of the fall of Roman Empire with my comment, and that's just one example. It took centuries for the world to get back most of what was lost during that period. Hell, we still don't know how to make concrete like they did. My point is, it's not far fetched to consider that most urban centers even two hundred years after a nuclear holocaust would still be rubble and ruin. There would be small communities, sure, but nothing on the scale of what we know today. That wouldn't be feasible what with roaming marauders, mutated creatures, and who knows what else. Whenever a civilization has collapsed in this world, there was a long period of feudalism and tribalism that arrived afterward. That's what we have in even the best case scenarios in Fallout games; feudalism.
And yeah, I'm sticking by my point. Turn the power off in San Francisco for a week and see what happens. When people realize that society is over, they go nuts. Any semblance of civility evaporates like a vegan fart and it's every man for himself. Any major city in the United States only has enough food stores to last the city three days. By the end of the week there'd probably be cannibalism. There's a reason post apocalyptic fiction only ever looks at the small scale story; the story of a band of friends or of a single person. It's because to look at the end of society on a macro level would make most people shit their pants with how fragile civilization really is.
That remix of the Fallout 3 theme was pretty sweet.
This looks pretty great. It's really weird not seeing Mel Gibson's face on Max, but I imagine I'll get over it as I play.
Batman combat is rad. I still have fond memories of pulling off 120 hit combos in that game. Hopefully Mad Max apes it enough to actually get the feel and flow of it right.
September 1st is a problem, though. MGS5 is what I'm playing on that day. May have to get this a little later in the year.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment