Watching a very long video on Elder Scrolls games and I'm happy to report that I disagree with most of the points he makes!

I actually got to watch a video that makes points! And has reasonable opinions! Being able to watch a video and go "hmm, good point, but I think-"

is so much nicer than watching a video that grinds down your resistance by spending the first five minutes pretending to be about a stupid joke skit.

So, let me talk about how "close to the pain" stories are.

I've noticed a rise in the number of video games which are literally about trauma, as in they flat-out say "here's representations of this character's trauma, use cards to beat it up and win!"

These are "close" stories. However, many video games are about the same kind of journey, but abstracted.

For example, Outer Wilds is not "here's the terror of death, here's some cards to battle death with!"

It's still a game about coping with death.

This is a "distant" story.

Well, I'm thinking about Ogre Battle before sleeping. What makes it so much better than modern autobattlers?

Let"s talk about it on my tiny phone keyboard. The first thing is that there's some complexity. There are five slots (most autobattlers have three) and front/rear rows as well as left/right positioning mattering. Modern autobattlers don't do that for one bug reason: gacha.

Putting aside the tedious whining, I really do want to talk about turn-based UI.

A lot of games feature turns, and UI is almost universally crappy.

Almost... but there are some good examples that we never seem to learn from. The basic premise of most turn-based games (combat-focused or not) is to choose from a set of equally-weighted moves from a menu.

Sometimes the menu with submenus listing everything you could conceivably do.

Sometimes the menu is a random selection of things you can do.

Hm. I'm very sleepy, looking for a game I might like. There's a new game out in a genre I sometimes like, but it... looks really terrible.

I mean, the art quality is great, but every screenshot screams "we didn't include any gameplay". It looks like a phone game. Not in terms of art, but in terms of play.

"Here's two squads of three autobattling", "here's a clickable map", "here's a talent tree", "here's cards"...

I was thinking about Pokemon games.

Well, not specifically. Games in the genre, in vague.

See, they lie at an interesting place halfway between two genres I like, and in turn I can't stand them. In an RPG, I enjoy growing the party members, both statistically and narratively. By the end of the game, I've got some really kickass cool friends.

In a construction game, I enjoy making the absolute best version of a think I can make, always learning new techniques.

RNG is a fascinating topic. Charles has some strong insights in his thread, but I come at things from the other side. Let me explain.

https://twitter.com/charlesrandall/status/1387751257482350595

Randomization serves two fundamental purposes:

1) It allows the dev to offer the player several pieces of content that the dev thinks are equally interesting.

2) It allows the dev to keep information hidden from the player.

Well, I was stuck on the Sam & Max remaster's only bad point last night. The ambient occlusion was so awful I woke up at 4 AM thinking about it.

So let's talk about big cartoon mouths. Small human mouths don't really move much. You can presume the back teeth are hidden and the front teeth can be simply lit because that's how tiny human lips work.

The problem is that as the mouth gets bigger, you see a lot more of the teeth.

So, the thing I adored about these games is that you could play them.

Most adventure games aren't made to be played. The puzzles are meant to "challenge" you, which for me always boils down to "read the dev's mind and then get a walkthrough".

Not these. These are basically just interactive movies - in the best sense of the term. They're fun to watch and fun to play and they don't ever make you stop to look shit up online.

Me: "Oh, I'm really in the mood for a game just like X..."

Everyone: "Oh, that exact thing came out two days ago, it's called Y"

Me: "No, not that one. I heard it existed, so I'm not interested." A major part of the problem is that I've simply stopped buying any game with an expansion pass.

I know the game's not done, so why would I buy it? I'll buy it in two years, when you've finished it.

Sigh... but this game isn't full price, so maybe... :\

It's interesting to me when people talk about sci fi as if it needs to be realistic. That's, uh, that's not the point of sci fi.

Even hard sci fi isn't about that. It may be realistic, but only because it's a more effective story with that feeling of realism. But what really is interesting to me is when people talk about the social currents of today, and whether sci fi should portray them as ongoing or solved.

Obviously, this is an authorial choice... but it's an interesting one.

OK, let's try this again.

The point is that you will end up destroying yourself. This is not a competitive spreadsheet with a board-game skin. It's about how far you can go.

Most games use an external force to test you. For example, Dwarf Fortress uses endless waves of monsters. And if you figure out how to deal with that using trap hallways, you'll get another bad shock when you find more monsters in your basement.

There are also stealth incursions of various sorts.

Waiting on lunch, so let's talk about an imaginary not-quite-4X game.

Each planet you settle has a population cap. You can only raise the cap with 'projects', large scale endeavors that create a reason for the colony to exist.

These also create the colony's place in the stars. If you land in a strange alien ecosystem, one project might be to adapt it. Another to study it. A third to clearcut it.

Each would lock and unlock 'paths'.

Clearcutting would lock the alien biome path, the other two would unlock it. But clearcutting unlocks other paths...

There's something charming about just... endless text crawl in an indie game. Especially clearly translated stuff. Clearly you must know all of this before you go pew pew with your space ships.

It just goes on and on and on, it's amazing. The smeerps of 1022 were particularly gromulent in their unending assault on the Tromblelands of Karpolina 9. The great science-monks of Zosorch unveiled their greatest masterpiece, the Maque Starland Bumbergloss. Unfortunately, it was defeated on the Yuyumaigrek Nebula battle of

Switched over to playing Haven, and I notice a few things right off the bat.

1) The woman's voice actor is already nailing these lines. Damn, hope the guy ups his game.

2) It's so nice to be able to have a game where people immediately LIKE EACH OTHER. Every game is at best "strangers meet in a bar-" and often "the party members seem to hate each other". Probably because that gives the relationship "room to grow".

But a game where the opening cutscene is a comfortable hug and a chat about the many dinners they share?

Nice!

Mask wearing among men seems to be in sudden decline, just when it might save their lives.

I don't want to sound sexist, but I think we might be incredibly fuckin' dumb. The amazing thing about it is they all have the same expression progression on their face.

They look smug and gleeful until they notice me, at which point they start to look nervous and shy, and then they usually step into the street.

Really? Me? The guy wearing green paisley?

I agree, and I'd like to have a wee thread. Mute this if you're not into writing or RPGs.

https://twitter.com/WadjetEyeGames/status/1237148741980880896

A lot of folks design a character with an extremely heavy backstory focus, especially in RPGs.

This is probably because backstories are "clean". The player can't change them, and can uncover them whenever it's convenient. It's an extremely easy, controlled bit of story.