SpaceInsomniac

@paul_tillich:

You should really play Moirai before your Panel, if you haven't before. I believe it's free to play on Steam. It's short, and is a great example of interactive storytelling. Congrats on the PHD.

I have to say that I really disliked where the last episode went.

Gruff guy saves the doctor's life, insists that it's too dangerous to go out and look for her kids who are probably dead, shares his very limited supply of food with her, never makes any advances towards her, and risks his own life when she needs medication. In return he gets manipulated, stabbed, and then shot all by the woman whose life he just saved. Do no harm? I guess not.

I get it that he was holding her against her will, but she was also the first human contact the guy had in YEARS, and he felt certain she would die if she left. There wasn't anywhere near enough attempts at diplomacy or explanation on her part, and he wasn't anywhere near enough of a bad guy to justify her actions. The whole "set weapons on stun because we care about taking another life" part really felt like a joke at that point.

He either needed to live, his death needed to be an unintended consequence of his actions, or the writers needed to make make him a lot worse. This just felt bad. I get that not everything needs to wrap up in a neat little happy package, but her actions just felt wrong after seeing her make so little effort. Not even a "if you let me out, I can contact my ship, and we can all leave together! You could have a life again!"

Unfortunately all of this happened in an otherwise fairly strong episode. It was really nice seeing more of the side characters explored.

Me getting back into Diablo 3 again after not playing it since Reaper of Souls first was released is actually what gave me the idea for this thread. I wanted to see which games did something similar, but I didn't want to lead with any specific example. It's funny that the first post named the game that inspired this thread.

To clarify even more, when I was saying "no DLC" I just didn't want people to start naming games with DLC as "post-game content," because that wasn't what I was interested in at all. Games like The Last of Us or BioShock Infinite have DLC, but they're more campaign additions rather than end-game additions. Reaper of Souls "let's add an end-game" DLC is fine, as would any other DLC that fundamentally changes the standard game to add longevity.

I really need to play that game. I've heard a lot of good things.

To be specific, I'm not talking about DLC here, although if added as a free update to improve the standard game that's fine. I'm also not talking about competitive mutliplayer as a reason to return to a game, although games with co-op content are fine.

Anyhow, you've hit the level cap, and / or finished the story, but there's still plenty of reason to keep playing. Perhaps it was always a part of the game, or perhaps the developers added it later, but the real game is just now beginning. Maybe it's loot, randomization, new challenges, post-campaign power upgrades, a truly enjoyable new game plus feature, or some other aspect of game design that makes a game last far beyond seeing the credits roll.

With that in mind, which games can you name that best fit that description, and why do you feel that they're the best examples of end-game content?

Lastly, if you have to discuss story or otherwise unexpected game features to explain your choices, please use spoiler tags.

Until I can enjoy the same PVP gameplay that I played for YEARS, and / or Destiny somehow gets a VERY compelling end-game, any and all DLC for this game gets an easy "nope!" from me.

I got my money's worth with Destiny 2, but no more until they fix what's broken, and return what what's missing. Crucible sucks.

I guess we've been there since the scarlet letter, and long before that, but the internet just makes everything so immediate and so vicious these days. I was watching that episode and thinking "You know, I think if they did the death penalty like that in modern society, everyone judged would end up dead."

Good question. The first one. I judge my favorites of anything based on my first experience with them, and how impressive they were back then. Just because something didn't age well, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered a classic for it's time.

The following are examples, not specific truths:

The only game modes in the new COD are going to be hardcore modes, with no kill cams, no radar, and much lower health.

The new Titanfall is getting rid of titans, and larger maps, and everything will take place on smaller maps with no Titans.

The new battlefield is only going to be a five on five competitive mode, and large-scale battles are not found in the new game.

The new Destiny is going to be 4 vs 4, and will be entirely focused on team-shooting.

All of the above examples aside from Destiny are actually somewhat true, because all of these modes are included with newer games in each series, but they were either included or added to these games as OPTIONAL game modes. Take what everyone has learned to know and love, and give people an OPTION of playing the game differently.

Bungie is the only company I can think of stupid enough to screw with their basic gameplay formula to this degree, and then just expect everyone to be fine with that. It would be great as an option, and as an addition. Instead, it feels like I paid for new content, only to have something that I really enjoyed taken from me. And yeah, I understand that 6v6 with traditional Destiny PVP was never promised, and I even played the multiplayer in the beta, but that doesn't change the feeling that Destiny 2 offers less than Destiny 1 in this respect.

While I'd never say never before hearing more about the DLC plans, I don't see myself ever buying any DLC for Destiny 2 unless they bring back 6v6 multiplayer with traditional Destiny gameplay. Something that I enjoyed for years is missing from my Destiny experience, and I want it back.

I liked the movie, and felt that it was a worthy follow up to the original, but there were some aspects about it that I didn't like or felt were poorly thought out. Some thoughts:

The powerful "villain" in this movie just doesn't work. He was far and away the worst part of this movie. He has a ridiculously sparse living / working environment. He only uses his "eyes" for some reason when it serves as some big creepy reveal. Meanwhile, I don't even fucking get out of bed without my GLASSES. He talks about how he can't make replicants quickly enough, and then kills / destroys one for seemingly no reason other than "Ooooh, look how evil I am!" As a business man, there's no point. It was just dumb.

And for making him "evil" there's no pay off whatsoever that leads to his death, failure, or even confrontation.

The replicant liberation front was kind of pointless, and also didn't have a payoff.

K's "death" was left up to audience interpretation, much like how the original movie left Rachel's lifespan and Deckard being a replicant or not up to interpretation. I liked that, but not everything needed to be left up in the air. There is far too little closure on many of the important matters brought up by the plot.

Things left up to the audience in the original:

• Rachel's lifespan.
• Deckard being a replicant or not.
• How successful Deckard and Rachel were at escaping.

Things left up to the audience in the sequel:

• Did K die on the stairs?
• What was said when Deckard met his child?
• What will become of his child?
• How could he possibly escape with his child, given the health condition that she has?
• What success or failure resulted from the replicant liberation fighters?
• How could they / did they tell the world about the child?
• How would or did the world react to that news?
• What became of the villain?
• The liberation front seemingly were the ones who put the tracker on K. If that's the case, the bad guys could still track K independently to Deckard. And if that's the case, why aren't they tracking him anymore at the end of the movie, when he's right outside the building with Deckard's child? Maybe I missed something with this one. Anyone care to explain?

For as overly long as this movie is, it leaves WAY too much up in the air. Even the most vague director's cut of the original had far more closure.