Juan Carlo

Alpha Protocol is super underrated. Sure the combat's a bit boring, but very few games do choice and consequences better than that one. If you play RPGs primarily to "write your own story," so to speak, then I'd recommend that one.

I haven't played them all, but I've played most (all on torment) and I'd rate them from hardest to easiest like so:

 

Avernum 5 (this has some insane and very sudden difficulty spikes in it, plus most monsters have tons of hitpoints. By far the hardest of the games I've played, I think)

 

Avadon (limited leveling and party build options make this one really hard on torment, especially if you don't play dexterity based characters)

 

Geneforge 5: I think this is the hardest of all the Geneforges just because so many cheese skills (e.g. parry) and magic (especially AOE spells) are nerfed. Plus, there are some pretty hard optional boss battles in it.

 

Avernum: EFTP--this isn't too bad, but it can be really difficult if you do things in the wrong order. It necessitates a bit of grinding and feeling your way around to get by on torment.

 

Geneforge 3, 4--these aren't too hard, but I think each has a few optional battles which are super hard to do on torment depending on what your build is.

 

Geneforge 1, 2--both of these are pretty easy

 

Avernum 4 -this one is super easy. If you ever want to try a Spiderweb game on torment play this one as it won't give you much trouble.

 

In general, though, I actually think that the Geneforges are easier than Avernum/Avadon just because most of the super hard battles in Geneforge are optional and there's always more than one way to get by. I know some disagree, though.

Heh.

 

Vogel did a speech at a conference (I posted the video in the general section) and he pronounced it as the two syllable "gene" "forge."

 

All I can say is........it's a shame he doesn't know how to pronounce his game correctly.

So I'm sure this topic has been covered before, but I'm wondering what are some of the favorite non-spiderweb RPGS amongst spiderweb fans?

 

It could be your favorite ever, the ones you think are underrated, or just the last one you played that you liked tolerably well.

 

I'm just curious where peoples' tastes fall and perhaps hoping to get some tips on some "must plays" that I haven't touched yet.

Several totally, totally, random thoughts:

 

1. Those questions at the end were a bit boring. I would have loved to hear his thoughts on how he finds the right balance between player freedom and more linear storytelling. It seems like G5 and Avadon stand at the end of either of that spectrum, so I would have loved to hear which model he prefers, which model he thinks is more financially viable, and which model he thinks results in better storytelling vs better game play.

 

This is something that I think Vogel is in a great place to answer too just because I've always seen the gameplay of the GEneforge series as wrestling with this exact issue. You have the earlier 2 which go more the sandbox route, then you have 3 which goes completely in a more linear progression, followed by 4 which attempts some sort of compromise before 5 which seems to do everything (plot, freedom, choice) and more (and succeed at it all brilliantly). So I'd love to get the chance to sit him down and pick his brain about each of the games and what he learned about the nature of story telling and its impact on gameplay and freedom through out the course of making them. But that's another conference, I guess.

 

2. I like Bioware as much as anyone (seriously, I played through the entire ME franchise twice! And have played all their other games at least once), but personally I wouldn't hold them up as the best story tellers working today. I would, however, say that they are maybe the most adept at marrying depth of storytelling with marketability--which is perhaps why Vogel mentions them (given that the speech is focused primarily on how good story can make your game more marketable). This, for me, usually means that Bioware makes solid games, but they rarely wow you. I often wish they would innovate a bit more (and they certainly tried to with ME3, which was awesome, but given the fan reaction I doubt they will try that again, which is a shame).

 

Anyhow, I just wonder if Vogel has ever played any of the Witcher games? I personally think that CDProjekt is the best RPG studio working right now when it comes to story telling, depth of character, and interesting world design. There's also Obsidian who I think have been the gold standard for more than a decade (although usually their games are so buggy that no one notices what great writers they are).

 

3. It was nice to hear that Redbeard was based on Bartok's Bluebeard. Vogel doesn't seem to have much love for Opera, but by sheer coincidence I was actually listening to Bluebeard's Castle a lot while playing Avadon. Weird coincidence.

Maybe this has been posted before, so if it has mods feel free to move it, but I though it was interesting:

 

 

It's Jeff giving a speech on how he conceives of storytelling in gaming--especially as far as Avadon is concerned. It's worth a watch.

If spiderweb was going to hire anyone I think they should hire a dedicated artist for their next game. Someone who can conceive of and design a unified aesthetic just for that game then move on. These things really aren't that expensive anymore so there's really no reason any longer for their games to look like they were assembled from a hodge podge of random (and often clashing) sources.

 

I really think art design is the one area that would pay off the most for them if they invested in it a bit and it would cost the least as they wouldn't necessarily have to change any of their actual tech. I have no doubt Avadon would have sold much more, for example, if it had a more appealing aesthetic.

I could see a pretty marketable pokemon-esque cartoon series being made out of Geneforge. It probably wouldn't be good or true to the tone of the games, but like I said I think it would be marketable as hell.

 

"Corrupted Thad, I choose you!"

Me too.

Lewis' is a boring, straight up, rip off of the Bible. Whereas Tolkien's creation is nearly as strange as anything William Blake has ever written--what with all its demiurges and lesser emanations and what not. It even flirts with a type of Gnosticism at times (which would give Lewis a conniption fit).

I've played Avernum:EFTP and Avernum 4 and 5.

 

I much prefer EFTP's JRPG overworld style map. You do get used to Avernum 4 and 5 eventually, but personally I think they are kind of a pain to navigate. There's just too much area to cover which can make it harder to keep track of things.

 

Plus, you'll spend a good deal of your time "mowing"---which is never fun.

 

Like I said, though, you do get used to things after a bit.

I like Zizek quite a bit. In fact, I don't think there's any philosopher more fun to read than him. He has a brilliant way of taking initial positions on things which seem incredibly (and almost deliberately) counter-intuitive, then constructing an argument for them which, by the end, makes everything seem obvious. Plus he's a film buff, which is awesome.

My only problem is that I've always thought Lacanian psychoanalysis to be silly, outdated, mumbojumbo and thus I've always been confused as to why Zizek insists on drawing so heavily from Lacan. The very philosophically grounded concepts from Lacan tend to work quite well in Zizek's writing, but whenever he goes into Lacan's ideas about psychology I think he's on shakier ground. To his credit, Zizek has done some awesome things with certain Lacanian concepts and they've allowed him to elucidate some interesting ideas, but Zizek's use of these ideas is unique enough that I've often wondered why he doesn't just divorce himself from Lacan entirely.

Plus, I don't miss Bombodill at all. Purists may scoff, but I've always thought he seemed out of place even in the books. It seemed like Tolkein was just starting to write the books and was still figuring out what exactly he wanted to accomplish and the sort of tone he wanted to set. So the Bombodill sections have always been kind of jarring to me, not only in tone, but in momentum (they stop the first section of Fellowship dead in its tracks).

 

I did miss the scouring of the Shire in the movies, though, as its absence kind of undermines some of the book's biggest themes in some really big ways. As many endings as ROTK had (most of which were unnecessary fluff like Hobbits cuddling, award ceremonies, and Sam flirting/getting married), I actually don't think keeping the scouring would have been much longer. I think Jackson was just worried that having a conflict like that at the end of the film would make the destruction of the ring anti-climactic, but if they framed it as the narrative conclusion of the Hobbit's own growth as individuals (i.e. overcoming their own fear and insularity to do good) I think the scouring could have worked as an ending.

 

 

Jackson doesn't have the rights to adapt the Silmarillion. They wanted to get them, but the Tolkein estate refused. So they will only be able to adapt stuff from the LOTR appendices, which actually aren't all that long all things considering.

I think two films is even stretching it. My concern is one of tone: the charm of the hobbit is that it is primarily a light, whimsical, children's fantasy. Adding a bunch of stuff from the LOTR appendices is going to completely mess up that delicate tone. Of course the very existence of LOTR does make the Hobbit much darker in retrospect, but I still don't think this means that the adaptations can be approached in the same way.

 

I think Guillermo del Toro could have pulled off the balance between the darkness that LOTR casts over the Hobbit (in retrospect) and the fairy tale whimsy (which is the Hobbit's primary charm) just right (Del Toro's nailed this delicate tone in films like "Pan's Labyrinth" and "The Devil's Backbone"--both of which are pretty dark, but at the same time very much children's fairy tales), so it's a shame he left the project. In contrast, Jackson's approach to Middle Earth tends to be straight forward realism, which worked well with LOTR, but isn't something that will work with the Hobbit without completely destroying what made the book so appealing. If he tries to make Hobbit in the style of the LOTR it will just come off as anti-climactic and kind of silly in an unnecessarily self-serious way.

 

Plus, I also fear unnecessary bloat and fan service. Do we need to see every character from LOTR make a cameo? No, but it will happen. The extended edition of Fellowship was just right, I think, but the extended editions of Two Towers and ROTK had serious, serious, problems with momentum. There are scenes which stop those films dead in their tracks and they just play as incredibly bloated to me. So I fear a 3 film, 6-9 hour version of the Hobbit will just be a tedious mess.

 

I mean, if you break down the story structure of the Hobbit I could perhaps see it being cut into two films (pre mirkwood as the first film, and everything else as the second), but I don't see how it could be cut into three without ruining the flow of the narrative.

So I finally finished my torment play through of the entire series I began way back in Novemeber. Awesome games, especially G5 which is one of the best RPGs I've ever played and which certainly rivals any of the late 1990s infinity engine classics.

 

But one question remains: how is "geneforge" pronounced?

 

Is it just pronounced "gene-forge" as in just a combo of the words "gene" and "forge"?

 

This seems the most obvious, but for some reason I've always pronounced it "gen-ah-forge"--i.e. as a 3 syllable word. It just sounds cooler to me than "gene-forge," which sounds a bit boring and overly literal. Plus, there is some linguistic precedent for pronouncing it as 3 syllables as while the second "e" in the word "gene" would not be pronounced when it's on its own, when an "e" like that appears in the middle of a word (as it does in "geneforge") it's often pronounced.

 

So which is the standard pronunciation?

The CGI and action were good, but the storyline was kind of cheesy, I thought. It was basically "Dances with Wolves" only with aliens instead of Native Americans.



I thought Avatar looked awesome in IMAX, at least. With post converted 2D films you very much get things divided into separate flat planes, so things end up looking like a pop up book. Plus, if it wasn't shot in 3D depth of field can get messed up at times (so stuff that isn't in focus, whether it is in the foreground or the background, can end up looking weird). But Avatar had objects which gradually receded into the back ground, so it looked a lot more realistic.

That said, at the end of the day I can take or leave 3D. It's not a special attraction for me, but I don't mind it as much as other people seem to either. If a movie is available in my area in 3D I'll see it, but if not no big deal.

Avatar is one of few movies that actually looks good in 3D. In fact, I think that movie kind of sucks so there's no real reason to see it in 2D at all.

 

I just saw Spider Man 2 3D, however, and it was the worst 3D I've ever seen. Not necessarily because the 3D was bad, but more because it was hardly used at all. The film had a very minimal depth of field, so for most of it there was no difference between 3D and 2D.

 

I generally don't mind 3D, though, if the film was shot in 3D and designed to be seen in 3D. "Hugo" and "Prometheus" both looked good in 3D, for example. But films that were shot in 2D then post converted tend to suck. They usually just look like blurry dioramas.

[spoilers]

 

I don't know if the creators intended it or not, but I'd say what little political message is there is pretty conservative. The movie for the most part avoids politics, but Bain at least seems to be aligned somewhat with the OWS movement. Obviously, I think he's just using the rhetoric to further his cause, but the movie doesn't really paint a pretty picture of OWS sorts of sentiments as it ultimately shows them to lead only to violence and extremism.

 

The only problem is that the politics of his group are left pretty vague--he does give a few speeches about the poor rising up against the wealthy to take back the city, but it's all left pretty half baked. As a consequence, I never really understood his or Talia Al'Ghul's motivation for doing anything. They were prepared to blow themselves up to succeed at their goal, but I still don't understand why they were so passionate as they are never really given a cause. This problem goes all the way back to "Batman Begins" where Ras Al'Ghul explains that his secret assassin guild has been destroying cities when they become too corrupt for centuries--but even there they never really explain why they do it other than just saying that they do. Plus, Ras Al'Ghul, while passionate, never seemed like the sort who would blow himself up to succeed. So having his daughter suddenly become a suicide bomber was kind of strange.

 

Maybe this is something that is greater explained in the comics, though, I don't know.

 

But I've always though The Dark Knight was pretty conservative too--or, at least, "neo con" when when it came to issues of national defense in the post-911 Bush era.

90% Obama

31% Romney

Favourite Comic: Calvin & Hobbes

 

Favourite Painter: Frida Kahlo

 

Favourite Sculptor: Don't know

 

Favourite Architect/Building:

 

Favourite Composer: Living: Michael Nyman Dead: Wagner

 

Favourite Musical Composition: The final aria in "Tristan und Isolde." Especially the Waltraud Meier version. She might not have the best voice, but she's an awesome actress and she embodies the material better than anyone, I think, so it floors me every time I see it:

 

Favourite Musician/Band: Musician: Tom Waits Band: The Magnetic Fields

 

Favourite Prose Writer:

 

American: Flannery O'Conner. I'm pretty much always reading her collection of short stories. Bloody hilarious and biting and grotesque and insightful and slightly mystical.

 

Non-American: Robert Walser. Pretty much the same thing can be said about him as O'Conner, actually: hilarious and biting and grotesque and insightful and slightly mystical.

 

Favourite Poet: William Blake. Especially his later stuff which is the most bizarre, complex, mind blowing literature I've ever read.

 

Favourite Playwright: Heinrich Von Kleist. I love German Romanticism and "Penthesilea" is the most awesomely brutal and underrated play ever (he was also a pretty good philosopher and prose writer on top of being a play write).

 

Favourite Filmmaker: Living: Lars Von Trier Dead: Ingmar Bergman

 

Favourite Philosopher: Kierkegaard, no contest. Derrida is really fun to read too, though, as even if he just ripped everything off from the negative theologians I like the linguistic games he plays.

 

Favourite Miscellaneous Artist Not Covered Above: Marina Abramovic is a brilliant performance artist. The only performance art that isn't complete BS, I think.

Anyone know what affects magic hit chance? I'm playing as an agent and find that my magic missles are missing a lot. Does dex affect this, or is it strictly battle magic/spellcraft?

I also didn't like Oblivion/FO3, but I'd say that Fallout: New Vegas is a good example of how to do storyline correctly within an open world.

FO:NV is awesome, I think. In terms of the world it builds it's almost as good as Fallout 2 (even if the combat will never be as good), which is high praise from me as FO2 is one of my favorite RPGs ever. FO:NV keeps you to a general overall storyline, but there are several ways to conclude that storyline and there is lots of random non-story quests to do along the way so you never feel bottled in. Plus, it restores all the interesting NPC companions that FO3 cut out.

I've never not played a game on torment, so I can't compare to easier difficulties.

 

Personally, though, I think the Geneforge games are easy enough on torment that playing them on anything less would be too easy.

 

Avadon on torment is hard, but ultimately just right, I think, as it doesn't have as much hitpoint bloat as some of the avernums. This means that even though they are a challenge, battles are usually quick enough that they don't become too tedious (save for a few optional boss fights).

 

Avernums on torment aren't necessarily hard (although parts of Avernum 5 on torment are super hard), but they can get a bit tedious just because, as games, they tend to have tons of trash mobs and hitpoint bloat (especially Avernum 5, whose torment is near broken, I think, not because it's hard but rather because it just takes so bloody long). So I wouldn't recommend playing Avernums on torment unless you really want a challenge and don't mind if your game time balloons up to 100 hours or so.

 

Although, that said, Avernum 4 is probably the easiest game to beat on torment--even easier than the Geneforges--so there are exceptions.

OK, we've established that canisters don't seem to affect your gameplay like previous geneforge games, but if you use too many will they change your ending?

I did it as a singleton agent on torment. The secret is to just not bother trying to wipe everything, but instead try to keep moving, grab the items, and only fight when you are cornered.

 

Plus, save whenever you drop out of battle. Even if you are cornered you can always just run back to the exit, so there's usually no danger in it.

 

The main goal is the boss ghost lady (can't recall her name) as she drops a pretty awesome stat belt (I think it's +2 all stats, or something like that). She's actually really easy, though, as geneforge 1 boss AI can be a bit wonky at times. When I fought her she would just heal every time I damaged her, and given that I did slightly more damage than she could heal, she kind of just got stuck in a heal loop and healed herself continually until she died. I don't even think she attacked me at all.

 

It was a bit anti-climactic. Almost as good as when bosses occasionally get stuck repeatedly blessing themselves while you beat them to death.

Yeah, but sometimes life is unsatisfying and you have to make terrible choices between the lesser of two evils. There isn't always a better choice. Why can't a game reflect that? Games rarely do, which is why I think Geneforge 3 was so refreshing.

Plus, deciding which faction to join wasn't a matter of total agreement as much as it was really breaking down various moral ideals and weighing their value against the potential costs. Which, to me, is when choices get interesting. You may value something like freedom for example, but at what point will you decide that the cost is too great? G3 doesn't explore these ambiguities perfectly, but it at least makes you think about this stuff which is more than most games do.