That's a good question. Overall I liked it, though I thought it was too action-y. If that makes sense. The Hobbit is a fairly low-key story and trying to make it all LotR epic was a mistake. Imho.
** spoiler omitted **
Tauriel is pretty cool for an action girl without much personality. I just kinda wish her entire motivation for abandoning everything ever was a little deeper than "that dwarf I talked to for 20 seconds was kinda hot" (okay, I wish it was only 20 seconds). Without getting into what I think about the whole Tauriel/Kíli thing in the first place, I thought the "romance" story was really badly told (and largely consisted of doing slow-motion shots and playing romantic music in the background every time Tauriel was on screen.)
But it wasn't all bad. On a more positive note:
Oh, one last thing that kinda bothered me:
They had a complete repeat of the 'Morgul blade poisoning' scene from LotR, with Kíli playing the role of Frodo and Tauriel the role of Arwen. I don't know what the point of that was. Did they think we forgot? Did they need a dramatic scene but was out of ideas so they just yanked something from an old script? I guess they needed a reason for Tauriel to go AWOL, but still.
The Beard wrote:
Alternate (and, perhaps, less ridiculous) interpretation: He didn't start playing "nowadays" and maybe even started playing in the aforementioned 70s-80s.
The Secret World still has a strong community in my experience. Lots of people are playing it. The end game is largely the traditional dungeon runs. Not really my cup of tea, so I couldn't tell you much about it.
They are releasing new issues frequently, with new storylines that either tell their own story (issue 5 was amazing) or continue the original storyline (like issue 7). Issue 8 was released recently, offering a new kind of gameplay that I haven't had a chance to play with yet (because my computer decided to suck) leading up to a major release of Tokyo as a new zone (scheduled for issue 9, last I checked).
Honestly, I have no idea why it's not more popular. I grabbed a GrandMaster pack (lifetime subscription) on launch day and haven't looked back.
Micro-transactions generally buy you new costume items (if you want to fight zombies in an awesome trenchcoat. Or beachwear.), plus some convenience items (like potions that make you earn ability points slightly faster for a while). More importantly, you also buy the new issues.
The main difference between subscription and non-subscription players is that a subscription nets you a monthly allotment of bonus points (roughly equivalent to the cost of the subscription) plus some minor cosmetic perks (there's an 'item of the month' sort of deal). It's worth noting that subscribers also have to buy the new issues (but they can use their "free" points.)
Honestly, the main reason you'd subscribe is if you like the game and want a system to automatically top up your point total every month. Either option is equally viable.
Sure, I've heard of them, but do you guys actually use decimeters very often? I see measurements listed in centimeters (150cm) and meters and centimeters (1m 50cm) all the time, but I don't think I've ever seen any listed in decimeters (15 dm).
I don't know about elsewhere, but here we don't generally use decimeters in common parlance. The concept exists though, if milimeters, centimeters and meters aren't doing it for ya. :)
A deciliter is a very common unit of measurement though.
That comic nicely sums up my main pet peeve with how the conversion from imperial to metrics seems to be handled in media. Basically, someone yanked out a calculator and did a direct conversion.
I really doubt someone actually measured the distance and woha, that guy actually lives exactly 30 miles away, to the inch! Remarkable! More likely, those 30 miles are really an implied "roughly 30 miles", and translating "roughly 30 miles" into "48.28 km" is just plain inane.
You see this on TV all the time. Some guy goes "oh, it's about 10 miles." and the translation will be "oh, it's about 16.0934km." Nobody talks like that.
(We also need to talk about the decimal point, because the above - done deliberately - is clearly wrong and should die in a fire.)
Played with my ex, reached level 60, got into some endgame...got bored. It's...forgettable to way the least.
Yeah, 'forgettable' pretty much sums up my experience with it. I vaguely recall enjoying myself while playing it but it didn't leave any lasting impression at all, whether positive or negative.
I do remember that I liked how they integrated the player-generated content into the gaming world, making it feel like a seamless part of the game (a stark contrast to, say, the Architect Entertainment system in City of Heroes.)
I don't think we were specifically discussing them, since they are no longer canon: the 'modified' endings from the Extended Cut DLC (further modified if you have LEVIATHAN installed) are now the official endings to the game.
If it really needs to be summed up, I made a post regarding the original endings, Scott commented on that post and I replied to his comment.
I get that there are four current endings, but that wasn't the topic in the post Hama was correcting. Hence the clarification. 'We' was the brief exchange between Scott and me, not everyone everywhere.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
Marketing isn't limited only to television or web advertisements; the article explains this...
While that's true, those are also the ads that are easiest to tailor to any specific market, and thus tend to be the most effective. There's no one global culture and designing in-game content to appeal globally is pretty tricky, simply because different things work for different cultures (see the disaster it was to launch Dungeon Keeper 2 with Danish voice acting. Or, as a more recent example, how happy people are with the way Origin sets your language preferences based on your IP. Aka. "I need to spoof my IP to set the client language to English?" o.O)
Advertisement isn't one size fits all, and thinking that "Scandinavia is pretty much Germany, right?" is a pretty good way to miss the boat (EA, I'm looking at you.) :)
I think that article is very localized in its' perceptions. I don't know where the writer is from (an easy guess would be the US, but when you assume...) but I don't think "marketing is evil" is necessarily the main reason. I don't think I've ever seen a video game ad before World of Warcraft started doing it a few years ago. And to this date I can count the games being actively advertised on one hand.
So it's clearly not marketing, my parents (I'm not sure they even knew video games existed) or me that taught my sisters that "video games are stupid" (though the youngest had a secret obsession with Age of Empires II).
Maybe it was the lack of marketing. Maybe they are just more socially conscious than me.
Lord Snow wrote:
I looked around. Everything was calm
Ah, I see. So by Half-Life gameplay you really mean less open world, more railroad. Gotcha. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. :)
I agree that F3 gave you a lot of freedom but wasn't always able to react credibly to your actions. Personally, I'd rather they improve this and find ways to make the game more responsive to the freedom it gives you, than taking that freedom away.
Lord Snow wrote:
If, one day, there will be a game in the fallout setting with half-life like gameplay, I'd be all over that game. I assume, however, that Fallout 4 is going to continue the same gameplay as well as the same setting from previous games.
I thought our main complaint about Fallout 3 was that it was too Half-Life-like.
Scott Betts wrote:
...but that is the conclusion. From Shepard's point of view, at least, it's more than possible to have fostered a (shaky) peace between organics and synthetics. This outcome makes the Catalyst look less like a galactic protector in the form of a necessary evil and more like a terrible mistake created by a paranoid people. The point, however, is that regardless of what Shepard thinks about the Catalyst's existence, it's still the only way of stopping the Reapers. (Notably, the extended version of the ending provided a fourth ending option where you shoot the Catalyst and watch the Reapers annihilate civilization again.)
Well, it was my conclusion based on the events of the games and what the Catalyst had to say, but I never got the sense from the actual conversation at the end that it was a conclusion I was supposed to reach, and Shepard didn't have any dialogue options (that I found, I only bothered with that long dreg of a walk three times) that really challenged the Catalyst's explanation.
But as I've said elsewhere, I don't really have an issue with the three possible endings (I mean, I think the space magic was kinda dumb, but that alone doesn't really hurt my opinion of the series as a whole). What I take issue with, is the Plot Exposition at the end, and how little sense it makes compared to roughly everything that has happened in game previously. If the writers meant for me to go "wait, that doesn't make any sense at all" they failed to get that across. Instead, they managed to make me sit back with the sense that whoever wrote the ending never actually played any of the games.
To me, it is at best an issue of failed communication, and at worst an issue of someone changing their mind about the main theme of the series in the last 10 minutes of it (or, even worse, not realizing that the series had a different message up 'till this point).
I don't really care which is true. At the end of the day I just can't be bothered with the series after that (I will, however, continue to play the heck out of ME3 multiplayer).
1. Since mid-80s.
Scott Betts wrote:
The absence of the Geth and Reapers isn't a huge deal. To give you an idea of how not-central they are to the universe, prior to the start of the first game neither of them were interacting with the rest of the galaxy at all.
The Reapers have had quite a lot of "interaction" with the universe prior to the start of the first game. :p
While the Geth aren't important, the absence of the Reapers kinda is. If the Catalyst is right, then Synthetics murdering all life in the universe is inevitable unless you murder all organics before it can happen.
Which really means that Synthesis is the only thing that actually works. Ignoring important questions like "how does 'turn organics into semi-synthetic beings' actually work?", "what is stopping semi-synthetic beings from building real synthetics that will inevitably murder them all?" and "am I the only one who think it's creepy how the toaster moans when I put a slice of bread in it?"
Of course, there's also the (fairly good) chance that the Catalyst is a total crackpot with no idea what it's talking about. Which makes the past umpteen instances of galaxy-wide genocide even more horrific (and anything but the 'Destroy' ending pretty terrible). The only things that really bother me about the original ending was how there's no option to go "dude, that makes no sense", and random space magic. That all this pointless mayhem was caused by a mad AI would have been a perfectly acceptable conclusion to the series.
No, the character would not have tried, because the OP would have known it wouldn't work. There is no separation in the OP's action choices to support your statement at all, my good sir.
I don't think it's really relevant to this discussion what may or may not have happened in an alternative timeline.
I don't know the OP. I do know that "shoot the giant melee monster while hovering outside its' reach" is an awfully obvious thing to do, assuming you have the capabilities to do that (there's a reason City of Heroes decided to give all enemies a form of ranged attack during beta :p). That it also just happens to work is just an added bonus.
Of course, this is coming from a guy who's only contribution to a fight against a BBEG Marilith was to shoot her with lightning, so I may not be properly tuned in.
Yep. Because he consulted Google first and didn't even bother to frame how his character came to that knowledge.
It's only meta-gaming because it worked. Even if golems had been immune to Lantern Archon blasts, it would be a perfectly valid thing to try against a seemingly invulnerable but melee-bound enemy. The only "meta-gaming" was the player failing to roleplay his character thinking of trying this trick. And, to be honest, each group approaches roleplaying differently. "You are roleplaying wrong" is not a valid argument.
Assuming, of course, that you are capable of summoning Lantern Archons in the first place (which is an honest mistake that both the player and the GM are "guilty" of, in this case).
Doesn't really sound like cheating, if you ask me. "Big, dangerous almost impervious monster with only melee attacks"? Trying to bombard it with ranged summoned creatures sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. Granted, you could have taken the discussion up in game. Like, go "hey guys, I know that thing is murdering us in melee, and my magic isn't doing much either. I could try to summon up some ranged things and see if that has any effect. How's that?"
I'm more iffy on the whole Chaotic God letting you summon Lawful outsiders and I think the GM would have been well within his right to shut it down there. That he didn't, and instead started accusing you of cheating seems odd. It's not like you guys are playing against each other (I assume?) Getting angry that you defeated an encounter is weird.
You explained your plan to him, as I understand it, including mentioning where you got the idea. If he had an issue with that, it would be fine IMHO for him to ask you to go through the train of logic that would lead your character to try something like that (or even ask for knowledge checks).
(As a GM, I'd be pleased as punch that a player cared enough about the game to actually think about it outside the session, but maybe that's just me. :p)
Scott Betts wrote:
I doubt very much that it will continue the Shepard plot. I think the word "sequel" here merely refers to the universe's chronology, with the new series taking place after Mass Effect 3, rather than before the first game or alongside the first series.
By "Shepard plot" I mean continuing the current storyline. I thought they had initially made statements that they had no plans to do that (I don't have a source, alas). Of course, plans can change.
Still, too bad, if they go that route. I would have liked something to further explore the setting we know from the ME games, rather than something dealing with the fallout of the ME3 ending. I think the setting is strong enough to tell more stories in it.
That said, it would rather amuse me if the ME4 plot was "they were right. Without the reapers, Synthetics eventually destroyed all life in the galaxy. You're an AI seeking allies as you rise up in rebellion against the omnipotent God-Machine."
I'd play that. :)
The only thing that bothered me was Gipsy's analog. What the hell.
What broke the camel's back, for me, was using the supertanker as a sword. That was just dumb. Then the Gipsy thing happened.
Trace Coburn wrote:
* ‘Shorthand’ because screen-time is precious, especially since by all accounts del Toro was ruthless in keeping running-time down, and ‘analogue’ is a lot faster to say than all that other stuff I wrote above.
'Analogue' is definitely shorter, but so is 'EMP shielding'. We don't need a technical specification on 'EMP Shielding' either, but it seems instinctively more plausible than going "oh that giant robot full of electronic equipment? Lucky for us, it doesn't use electricity at all."
Anyway. I think nitpicking at the scientific details is probably missing the point. What "broke" the movie, for for me, was really the intro sequence where they give you the backstory on the Kaiju and some brief looks into how this has affected society. I sat there thinking "that's the movie I want to see."
Saint Caleth wrote:
How vital is it that the orcs are 8 feet rather than 6'5" or whatever. There are a surprising number of practical tricks to add a few inches to an actor onscreen and once you get someone in costume with Warcraft proportioned armor, the necessary physical bulk will be there.
Roughly as vital as portraying humans as being about as wide across the shoulders as they are tall. Ie. not at all and if you try too hard it might get a bit silly.
Hrm. Advice? "You can't prepare enough Silence spells." But I'm sure you're aware. :)