Most self indulgent thing you've seen in a game?

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Or, on the subject of Daisy and the Vox, why the entire Vox Populi just instantly go from "hell yeah, Booker!" to "kill Booker, Daisy told us to!" Like, was there no-one among the Vox who stopped and asked why?

Like I said, the Vox are really mishandled. I'm not even sure why they're there per se apart from trying to make points about class warfare. Which would be fine, if the game wasn't also trying to cover numerous other themes as well.

The Vox that goes "kill Booker" is not the same Vox that rooted for Booker, since they're in a parallel dimension. I believe, but still ain't entirely certain even after 3 or 4 playthroughs of BS:I, that the deal with the Vox is that when we meet them in the first dimension we are meant to root for them, they are obviously the voice of the downtrodden and fighting for a worthy cause. After Booker skips dimension, we get to see how fragile a popular uprising can be, that all it takes for it to go from just and worthy to 'just as bad as the other guys' is whether the leader is measured or bloodthirsty. Columbia is always shit, but the Vox, just like Booker, has the potential to be a force for good instead of bad. Some Bookers becomes Comstocks and some Vox Populis become bad Vox Populis. That's what I think the game is trying to get at.

This is obviously not handled well in the game and I think a part of the problem with the Vox is that the twist (that you are suddenly meeting alternate reality Vox who hates your guts) comes before the full implications of dimension hopping are revealed. Thus the Vox comes off as really weird ("I was just helping these guys! Why is Daisy suddenly an asshole?!") and once it is explained why in depth, the game, and player, is no longer concerned with the Vox, but with dimension hopping.

I've also got this nagging feeling that BS:I as a finished product reflects some of its development hell. The take on American Exceptionalism was obviously what Irrational wanted to do first, it is what's displayed front and center in all early promotions, but through the prolonged development it became something else. My guess is that as time ran out the writing for all different BS:I's was just mashed together into a coherent narrative, but a mess of themes.

 

[Hawki]

The Vox that goes "kill Booker" is not the same Vox that rooted for Booker, since they're in a parallel dimension. I believe, but still ain't entirely certain even after 3 or 4 playthroughs of BS:I, that the deal with the Vox is that when we meet them in the first dimension we are meant to root for them, they are obviously the voice of the downtrodden and fighting for a worthy cause. After Booker skips dimension, we get to see how fragile a popular uprising can be, that all it takes for it to go from just and worthy to 'just as bad as the other guys' is whether the leader is measured or bloodthirsty. Columbia is always shit, but the Vox, just like Booker, has the potential to be a force for good instead of bad. Some Bookers becomes Comstocks and some Vox Populis become bad Vox Populis. That's what I think the game is trying to get at.

This is obviously not handled well in the game and I think a part of the problem with the Vox is that the twist (that you are suddenly meeting alternate reality Vox who hates your guts) comes before the full implications of dimension hopping are revealed. Thus the Vox comes off as really weird ("I was just helping these guys! Why is Daisy suddenly an asshole?!") and once it is explained why in depth, the game, and player, is no longer concerned with the Vox, but with dimension hopping.

Yes, I know the Vox that want to kill Booker aren't the same Vox he encounters earlier on. It's still dubious. I get why Daisy wants Booker killed, but I find it iffy that not a single Vox apparently has qualms with killing him as soon as the order is given.

Also, I'm not sure about the idea of some Vox being worse than others - we don't see anything to separate the Vox in "Dimension 3" from "Dimension 1," only in the former, Booker and Elizabeth get them guns from "Dimension 2," whereas in "Dimension 1," they're without firearms. It isn't some moral code that's keeping D1 Vox in check, it's the lack of firearms. And even that aside, I'm not onboard with the game's clumsy attempts at equating Daisy with Comstock. Daisy's no saint, but the Vox's anger is legitimate, even if their actions get innocents killed. Comstock is a religious maniac whose stated goal is to cleanse the "Sodom Below," which is basically worldwide genocide ala the Biblical flood. There's no way Daisy's actions are morally equivalent to Comstock's.

I've also got this nagging feeling that BS:I as a finished product reflects some of its development hell. The take on American Exceptionalism was obviously what Irrational wanted to do first, it is what's displayed front and center in all early promotions, but through the prolonged development it became something else. My guess is that as time ran out the writing for all different BS:I's was just mashed together into a coherent narrative, but a mess of themes.

It's certainly possible. Of the three main themes I mentioned, you could have some overlap with racism and classism. But throwing alternate realities into that? Like, it doesn't quite fit thematically.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

In what is sure to be buried under a pile of quotation boxes here's a fun rant where the creator of YIIK: A Postmodern RPG announces that video games are for children and we're all too plebian to appreciate his game.

https://webm.red/NmGo.webm

 

[Thaluikhain]

That game seems like someone who only heard of Duke Nukem described the game to the creators.

'Oh that game with all the porn shops and sexy ladies?'

The first two games which no one knows about are not sexual at all, and Duke Nukem 3D, the game people actually like is far less distracted by sexual content. Sure there is a porn shop, strip clubs etc, but they make up far less of the game than Forever seems to think.

That did seem to be a big part of the appeal at the time, though, at least amongst the people I knew.

The other problem might be that it's how the game starts off. The first level is about an adult cinema, the second an adult bookshop (with peepshows) and a strip club. Sure, the next level is a prison (though with the poster concealing the exit depicting scantily clad women), but a player's first impression is going to be strippers and pig cops.

 

[BrawlMan]

In what is sure to be buried under a pile of quotation boxes here's a fun rant where the creator of YIIK: A Postmodern RPG announces that video games are for children and we're all too plebian to appreciate his game.

https://webm.red/NmGo.webm

Dude sounds like a total, self-absorbing *****.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I'm not onboard with the game's clumsy attempts at equating Daisy with Comstock. Daisy's no saint, but the Vox's anger is legitimate, even if their actions get innocents killed. Comstock is a religious maniac whose stated goal is to cleanse the "Sodom Below," which is basically worldwide genocide ala the Biblical flood. There's no way Daisy's actions are morally equivalent to Comstock's.

I don't think the game wants to equate Daisy with Comstock on a moral level, rather the changes in the Vox Populi, from righteous anger to bloodthirsty maniacs, are meant to parallel the differences in Bookers' across the dimensions. Just like the Vox rose from the squalid conditions for workers, so did Booker come from a desperate situation with psychological trauma and a drinking problem. In some realities Booker gets baptized and goes religious crazy, in others he endures the guilt, in some he sells his daughters, in some he refuses. The idea BS:I pushes is that small changes in causality can lead to great differences in outcome, which is what I think they want to do with the Vox.

With that said, I am on board with all your criticisms of it. It is very poorly handled, poorly explained and not as thematically clear as it should be (like many others I went with the "class warfare is bad?"-reading until about my 4th playthrough). However, extrapolating from the central theme in the Booker/Comstock-story means you can at least read the Vox as being meant for a similar role, albeit with atrocious execution. Just like how the game shows us various kinds of Elizabeth's, with some having gone mad, some having resigned to their fate and some fighting back.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Hideo Kojima. Suda51. Swery65. Basically any Japanese auteur, for good or bad.

 

[Saelune]

That game seems like someone who only heard of Duke Nukem described the game to the creators.

'Oh that game with all the porn shops and sexy ladies?'

The first two games which no one knows about are not sexual at all, and Duke Nukem 3D, the game people actually like is far less distracted by sexual content. Sure there is a porn shop, strip clubs etc, but they make up far less of the game than Forever seems to think.

That did seem to be a big part of the appeal at the time, though, at least amongst the people I knew.

The other problem might be that it's how the game starts off. The first level is about an adult cinema, the second an adult bookshop (with peepshows) and a strip club. Sure, the next level is a prison (though with the poster concealing the exit depicting scantily clad women), but a player's first impression is going to be strippers and pig cops.

That might be fine for concerned mothers who would never play it anyways, but not for the people DEVELOPING THE GAME!

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The ending is the one thing that's actually done amazingly well in Bioshock Infinite. I think one man's debt is X amount of parallel universes is far better than the Comstock universes, small price to pay honestly.

Not denying that - from hard calculus, it's worth it. But it's far easier to care about Booker than others because, if for no other reason, we've been playing as him throughout the game.

The 1st Bioshock has as many, if not more, plot issues. Bioshock is literally the worst assassination plot I've ever seen.

Maybe - I'll concede that Fontaine's plan is convoluted. But BioShock is far 'cleaner' than Infinite IMO. Part of it is that BioShock is dealing with one clear theme, while Infinite is dealing with various themes and fumbling a number of them. In essence, a simple story told well is better than a complex story told poorly.

Booker not having a happy ending makes his character development that much stronger IMO. He chose the right path so hard that his choice became a constant so that Comstock would never ever exist even though it meant him being worse off.

I kinda feel both games fumble quite hard at different points. I feel Infinite's beginning and ending are really really strong (possibly the strongest in any game ever), though the middle section of the narrative is akin to Mark Sanchez's butt fumble. Whereas Bioshock starts strong but meanders until you get to Ryan, which is strong, but from then on it kinda ends in a whimper. It's like both games knew what to do for about 2 hours of game time and just didn't know what to do with the rest of the narrative.

 

[Hawki]

Booker not having a happy ending makes his character development that much stronger IMO. He chose the right path so hard that his choice became a constant so that Comstock would never ever exist even though it meant him being worse off.

Is that what actually happens?

The way I saw it was that at the very end, it isn't so much Booker choosing per se, but more the Elizabeths removing the choice entirely. As in, if we're using the game's terminology, removing choice (or rather, the variable), and turning it into a constant. Like, previously, Booker had a choice to accept the baptism or not. With the Elizabeths, the choice no longer exists, and Booker refusing the baptism across all worlds is the new constant.

I kinda feel both games fumble quite hard at different points. I feel Infinite's beginning and ending are really really strong (possibly the strongest in any game ever), though the middle section of the narrative is akin to Mark Sanchez's butt fumble. Whereas Bioshock starts strong but meanders until you get to Ryan, which is strong, but from then on it kinda ends in a whimper. It's like both games knew what to do for about 2 hours of game time and just didn't know what to do with the rest of the narrative.

Bit different here. Infinite, I feel is strongest in its first part (everything up to meeting Daisy), and everything after that is markedly weaker. BioShock 1 has a similar problem in that everything up to Ryan leaves a better impression than everything that comes afterwards. However, I feel that BioShock kind of has an excuse for this, in that many have said that Fontaine isn't as good a villain as Ryan. I agree, but I feel that's the point, that Fontaine comes off as trying to be as grandiose as Ryan, but fails. So while this doesn't excuse the weaker part of the game, it does help contextualize it.

Infinite doesn't have the same excuse.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Booker not having a happy ending makes his character development that much stronger IMO. He chose the right path so hard that his choice became a constant so that Comstock would never ever exist even though it meant him being worse off.

Is that what actually happens?

The way I saw it was that at the very end, it isn't so much Booker choosing per se, but more the Elizabeths removing the choice entirely. As in, if we're using the game's terminology, removing choice (or rather, the variable), and turning it into a constant. Like, previously, Booker had a choice to accept the baptism or not. With the Elizabeths, the choice no longer exists, and Booker refusing the baptism across all worlds is the new constant.

I think so, it's how I saw it. I think that's why Elizabeth brings Booker to the area between universes so while he's contemplating the choice, there can't be a new universe that springs up from him deciding not to go through with it. That's also why Elizabeth's stops Booker before going through the final door and asks 'are you sure?' because if he's not sure, then it all happens again basically. If Elizabeth could just remove the choice, she wouldn't have to teach him or show him anything really. Every scene and bit of dialogue in that ending is so very purposeful.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'm gonna go with a positive take of "self-indulgent" here.


The legend of heroes series is my pick, lets say the Trails of Cold Steel tetralogy since they're the newest entries.

So, these games not only are 70-90 hour story/cut-scene heavy turn based Jrpgs with all of the regular trimmings but they also bundle a ton of extra flavor. Too much flavor. Each npc has 2 unique lines, some more, some fewer, usually it's 2.

Every time you do anything of even minor importance, such as moving the time of day from morning to noon or doing all of the day's sidequests, you have to go throughout the entire accesible maps of the game to talk to every npc over and over and over again, cause they ALWAYS have new things to say.

You see, those npcs are not like your common SJW, they actually have relevance in the world they occupy and are interesting, each with their own sub-plot that you learn about as you keep talking to them over and over and over again.

There's this girl in highschool who is an aspiring nun and is helping out at this church during sunday school. Then there's some kids, one of which is a brat who always makes fun of the girl of the group but hates studying. Over the course of the game you see the kid develop a crush on the older aspiring nun character, which motivates him to study so that he'll impress her. Oh and his dad is the bookstore owner who is shocked about his son suddenly reading books and muses about him "finally learning the value of education" and so on. (and yes, the game also has in-world books you can ((really should)) read that offer invaluable information about the main plot or about what happened after the endings of other games in the franchise)

These are just 6 npcs, there's a good 90 or so of other similarly minor npcs (yes, they don't sound very minor, I know) whose stories you explore as mere FLAVOR, just something there to give the world a real-like feel to it as you go through the main story. And if the flavor is this intricate, you can just imagine how much detail and love is put in the actual main story.

By the end of the game, if you take the time to talk to every npc every single time you think they will have something new to say (almost always you'll be right) you know almost every npc by name (yes, almost all of em have individual names) and have experienced a mountain of short stories.


Oh and the actual main plot is both standalone and also HEAVILY referential of the trilogy that came first in this universe called Trails in the Sky and the duology (that is only out in Japan due to psp dying too soon over here) called trails of zero/ao.

Each of those games also do the same thing with their minor npcs, and some of those minor npcs will (when it'd make sense based in their personal plots) also make an appearance in trails of cold steel too, on top of the actual important characters and npcs. So if you wanna REALLY know who that duo of wacky, depressed travelers are you better sit down and play 3 other 80 hour Jrpgs!


So yeah, this series is the thing most fitting of the description "self-induldgent" and it's the best thing ever for it. The ps4 remake (with the original JP audio, finally!) of cold steel 1 just came out a while back and cold steel 2 is coming out soon. Go play it now!

 

[Drathnoxis]

You see, those npcs are not like your common SJW, they actually have relevance in the world they occupy and are interesting

How are SJWs relevant to anything you were talking about? Do you always feel the need to throw random insults at people you don't like no matter what the topic?

 

[Thaluikhain]

That might be fine for concerned mothers who would never play it anyways, but not for the people DEVELOPING THE GAME!

Eh, if that's the general perception of the game, it's not unlikely to be the perception of potential buyers of the next game.

I mean, sure, DNF was a bad joke that turned into a game nobody cares about, but making the game to fit the expectations of lots of potential players isn't necessarily a bad idea.

 

[Dalisclock]

You see, those npcs are not like your common SJW, they actually have relevance in the world they occupy and are interesting

How are SJWs relevant to anything you were talking about? Do you always feel the need to throw random insults at people you don't like no matter what the topic?

I noticed this too and had the same question. What do SJW have to do with anything? Does Tales of Cold Steel have some "Social Justice" Politics I didn't know about and somehow didn't become a controversy?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

There's an area in Guacamelee 2 that just exists to make fun of the people who criticized the use of memes in Guacamelee 1 and doubles down on the memes even harder. It's the dankest timeline.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

You see, those npcs are not like your common SJW, they actually have relevance in the world they occupy and are interesting

How are SJWs relevant to anything you were talking about? Do you always feel the need to throw random insults at people you don't like no matter what the topic?

I noticed this too and had the same question. What do SJW have to do with anything? Does Tales of Cold Steel have some "Social Justice" Politics I didn't know about and somehow didn't become a controversial?

It does, indeed. The overarching plot is about a country with an aristocracy and a commonfolk reminiscent of the middle ages (but with some hints of modern technology like trains and tanks too) and the political faction in control of the government being one allied with the commoners going on to instituting reforms which cause conflict since the nobles can't stand for equality. Nobility always is seen as the superior folk so it's seen as a big thing when the main party members are from all walks of life (some nobles, some commoners, a foreigner etc.) and you deal with a lot of issues that stem from that setting.

You actually have a character who is initially basically a sjw caricature with how he hates all the nobles just for being nobles learn to see one of the noble people in your team as an individual and not as just a representation of the structure of their society.


So yeah, like I said, lots of details~

That it didn't become controversial is due to it taking the middle route (the protagonist is an adopted commoner to a noble house so he's literally both) in explaining both sides but not PREACHING about how either side is more right than another. There's antagonists and protagonists but no outright "evil caricature villains" like you find in most games. There's asshole commoners (the aforementioned party member being one of them) and there's really honorable and down to earth nobles.

Basically, the game is a heavy critique on both factions here. It doesn't sugarcoat anything they do and it showcases both of their faults in a balanced, fair way, then tasks you with fixing up all of their mistakes. It's right when it critiques the asshole noble kid who tries to bully you cause you have dirty blood and it is also right when it shows you the prosperity that a really good ruler can bring to his people.

 

[Saelune]

That might be fine for concerned mothers who would never play it anyways, but not for the people DEVELOPING THE GAME!

Eh, if that's the general perception of the game, it's not unlikely to be the perception of potential buyers of the next game.

I mean, sure, DNF was a bad joke that turned into a game nobody cares about, but making the game to fit the expectations of lots of potential players isn't necessarily a bad idea.

The expectation should be 'Hey people really really really liked Duke Nukem 3D, maybe we should try to do something like that'. Kind of like how the new versions of DOOM and Shadow Warrior did that.

 

[Erttheking]

?You actually have a character who is initially basically a sjw caricature with how he hates all the nobles just for being nobles learn to see one of the noble people in your team as an individual and not as just a representation of the structure of their society.?

I guess SJW just means whatever people want it to mean, and apparently now it means ?person with simplistic opinion.?

Also, FYI, aristocratics being noble leaders who bring prosperity to the common folk is a heavily romanticized take on the idea of nobility, even when they?re depicted as the good ones. You rarely find it in real life, where historically any prosperity brought to a nation was very top heavy. There are exceptions of course, but do understand that JRPGs depicting a noble as enlightened and caring for the commoners is like depicting a samurai as a kind warrior, as opposed to someone who would slit your throat if you insulted them and would get off scott free for it.

It?s like George R.R. Martin said. ?And that?s another of my pet peeves about fantasies. The bad authors adopt the class structures of the Middle Ages; where you had the royalty and then you had the nobility and you had the merchant class and then you have the peasants and so forth. But they don?t? seem to realize what it actually meant. They have scenes where the spunky peasant girl tells off the pretty prince. The pretty prince would have raped the spunky peasant girl. He would have put her in the stocks and then had garbage thrown at her. You know.?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, FYI, aristocratics being noble leaders who bring prosperity to the common folk is a heavily romanticized take on the idea of nobility, even when they?re depicted as the good ones.

Yes, but then if it's a fantasy world of your own devising, you can have a romanticized social system. If you are sticking trains and tanks into the Middle Ages, well, you can make it as grimdark as you like, but authors shouldn't pretend they are forced to due to realism.