Register
Gizmog:
Yeah, I agree the light saber can't just cut through anything. I liked that scene in the prequels too with the big door. I also love the Han use on Hoth. Showing Finn being vaguely competent at fighting with one, but still losing to a seriously wounded Kylo was great. But I still think it cheapens it if the bad guys can mass produce 'energy sticks' that are light enough to be wielded in hand-to-hand combat, and can stop a light saber.
As for the training thing, it's a tough balance. I agree 100% about Yoda's line and the ensuing problems with training Luke - belief was the wrong word, and suspending disbelief is better. And yeah, it's about focus and self-control. It's NOT about a bunch of kids standing around with light sabers and those laser balls.
But yeah, Luke's no 'chosen one', and putting in a 'prophecy' into the prequels was awful. But I don't think Rey's a 'chosen one' either, and nothing about the movie made me feel that way. She's maybe Luke's daughter, which I would regard as a minor reveal for early in the next film. That doesn't make her any more special than Luke was. She's just a natural, and Kylo is clearly not great at being a badass (yet). I was on board with it. But I can see why some folks might not be.
All that said, I think your last two paragraphs really paint the full picture well. And I'm okay with this new film's answer to that dilemma.
I am Srime
Mon Dec 28, 2015 6:28 pm 
Mon Dec 28, 2015 6:37 pm
PS: I've never read any of the books, or played any of the video games after that one on the n64 where the controls were so bad you would walk off cliffs accidentally (that game had a couple really fun sequences though, including fighting Boba Fett with a jet pack of your own). Not sure if that colors my perceptions at all.
I am Srime
I am Srime
Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:33 pm
One of my favorite bits of the prequels is how hard the fundamentalist Jedis hold on to The Prophecy in #1 and then eventually say "maybe we screwed up and this didn't mean anything/meant something completely different" in #3. Same with Yoda going from training rooms full of child soldiers with laser swords to focusing on quiet meditation. He's got one of the better arcs in the prequels.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:13 am
Going back to prequel chat because I just learned this and I like it: Anakin's mother's name (Shmi) is derived from Lakshmi, a Hindu goddess who also goes by the name of Padma, further conflating Anakin's screwed up relationship with Padme Amidala as a mother/lover figure. The prequels have some great stuff in them.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:47 am
I forget if I've said it already in this thread, but I don't think the prequels are bad movies.. they're just not what I expected from Star Wars movies. The pod racing scene was ridiculously out of place compared to Yavin, Hoth and Endor but on its own had a lot of cool stuff going for it. I'm a sucker for that kind of in-universe sporting event presentation, the only other example I can think of would be quidditch (which I think someone already brought up).
There was a real sense of scale and spectacle to the whole thing. I'm from Kentucky and it reminded me a lot of the way they televise the Kentucky Derby around here. Jabba waddle-slithering to his seat could've been any celebrity or foreign dignitary with nothing better to do on the first Saturday in May. Risking a little kid's life because your magic blood tester says he's a wizard, just to win a bet, is the most fantastically sleazy thing I've ever seen on film! If that kid were anyone other than Anakin Skywalker, whose future we already knew, and if the kid were a little older so we can think for a few minutes that they might ACTUALLY kill him... there could've been so much tension and excitement in that.
Prequel-Yoda is so hard to watch. I always imagined him as this wise mentor figure... I never thought of him using a lightsaber, let alone dueling with one, let alone leading a helicopter full of soldiers into a war zone. I love the concept.. taking a heroic figure and showing his warts and the skeletons in his closet.. but I never felt like his mistakes were sympathetic... I just felt like he was an idiot.
The Hindu goddess stuff is fun and something I've never heard of! I'm half-tempted to rewatch the prequels now, just because I don't remember there being any kind of mother parallels with Padme's character. Lucas is a talented writer and he's got a way with symbolism, even if it doesn't always tranlate to the screen.
There was a real sense of scale and spectacle to the whole thing. I'm from Kentucky and it reminded me a lot of the way they televise the Kentucky Derby around here. Jabba waddle-slithering to his seat could've been any celebrity or foreign dignitary with nothing better to do on the first Saturday in May. Risking a little kid's life because your magic blood tester says he's a wizard, just to win a bet, is the most fantastically sleazy thing I've ever seen on film! If that kid were anyone other than Anakin Skywalker, whose future we already knew, and if the kid were a little older so we can think for a few minutes that they might ACTUALLY kill him... there could've been so much tension and excitement in that.
Prequel-Yoda is so hard to watch. I always imagined him as this wise mentor figure... I never thought of him using a lightsaber, let alone dueling with one, let alone leading a helicopter full of soldiers into a war zone. I love the concept.. taking a heroic figure and showing his warts and the skeletons in his closet.. but I never felt like his mistakes were sympathetic... I just felt like he was an idiot.
The Hindu goddess stuff is fun and something I've never heard of! I'm half-tempted to rewatch the prequels now, just because I don't remember there being any kind of mother parallels with Padme's character. Lucas is a talented writer and he's got a way with symbolism, even if it doesn't always tranlate to the screen.
Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:41 pm
Gizmog wrote:
Risking a little kid's life because your magic blood tester says he's a wizard, just to win a bet, is the most fantastically sleazy thing I've ever seen on film!
Between this and refusing to help Anakin's mother, Qui-Gon really is a pompous jackass. And he's acting as a representative of the Jedi Order! They're not the villains, but they're not good guys.
I still think if the bet had failed and Anakin lost (but didn't die) Qui-Gon would have just killed Watto.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:50 pm
It's been a long time since I watched any of the prequels in full. The podrace was fun I guess, but Gizmog is right that the tension gets lost because we know how it has to end. And the whole betting charade made no sense. He uses the Force to cheat anyways! Quigon is either an asshole or a moron or very likely both, and almost makes you feel bad for Wado who owns slaves!
The Shmi-Padma thing is neat, but yeah it just makes the whole thing more messed up. You know, if the prequels were supposed to be about how messed up everyone was, which I admit is possible, then Lucas really has no concept of tone or presentation. Like, at all.
The Yoda thing is the same. I agree with Gizmog - it COULD be neat to look back and see that Yoda made mistakes. But it's presented so sloppily, and just makes him look like an idiot instead. As for the light saber thing, yeah it's dumb, but it could've been cool. In my mind I always imagined Yoda, if he is forced to fight, just standing there meditating with his eyes closed leaning on his stick, controlling a floating light saber with the Force. Maybe they'll make Luke do this in the next film before he gets killed and Mark Hamill can get paid for standing around again. Don't get me wrong I loved the scene and Hamill's expression, but all I could think was it was probably a stunt double when he was turned around looking over the cliff, so the dude was literally in like one shot.
I am Srime
The Shmi-Padma thing is neat, but yeah it just makes the whole thing more messed up. You know, if the prequels were supposed to be about how messed up everyone was, which I admit is possible, then Lucas really has no concept of tone or presentation. Like, at all.
The Yoda thing is the same. I agree with Gizmog - it COULD be neat to look back and see that Yoda made mistakes. But it's presented so sloppily, and just makes him look like an idiot instead. As for the light saber thing, yeah it's dumb, but it could've been cool. In my mind I always imagined Yoda, if he is forced to fight, just standing there meditating with his eyes closed leaning on his stick, controlling a floating light saber with the Force. Maybe they'll make Luke do this in the next film before he gets killed and Mark Hamill can get paid for standing around again. Don't get me wrong I loved the scene and Hamill's expression, but all I could think was it was probably a stunt double when he was turned around looking over the cliff, so the dude was literally in like one shot.
I am Srime
Fri Jan 01, 2016 8:50 am
MSW, how did I forget that scene on Hoth with the lightsaber? That was the best! Who the heck even puts that into their movie, it's so bizarre. Speaking of Qui Gonn though.. If there is going to be a "No.... X is your father!" scene in Episode 8, I'm betting now that it revolves around Qui Gonn. A... "Holy crap, you mean they're actually going to use stuff from the prequels?!" kind of moment... or maybe I'm just hyped on the New Year[/spoiler]
Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:24 am
Yeah, my jaw would definitely drop if Quigon is even mentioned in any of these new movies.
Happy New Years folks!
I am Srime
Happy New Years folks!
I am Srime
Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:14 pm
I'm working on a best of 2015 list for games and movies now. Here's one that definitely won't be on it!!
Titan Souls
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Titan Souls
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:31 am
Could someone explain the appeal of games where you have exactly one shot to get through every single segment of it? In my experience, all it does is make the game become exceptionally frustrating when the segments get even somewhat lengthy (the last area of Super Meat Boy comes to mind).
Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:10 am
Many roguelikes (Delver, Risk of Rain, Hammerwatch, Realm of the Mad God are all that I can think of right now) deal with the frustration of dying by giving you more to play with once you start a new game. In Risk of Rain, you unlock characters by completing achievements in-game. Each of these characters is balanced uniquely and essentially makes it a different game entirely.
I find that the only time a permadeath game has long term replay value is when there is either an overarching goal aside from the start to finish 'beating the game.' An actual sense of progression to make up for the fact that your progress in the actual game gets lost forever when you die. Otherwise, I think just adding a large amount of exploration factors and new things to discover, preferably ones that affect gameplay, would give it replay value.
Like you said, it shouldn't be too long. It would be a little ridiculous (as Super Meat Boy arguably is) to require the player to defeat a massive gauntlet of a game in one go. Depending on the game, I think if it had some form of checkpoint system you might be able to balance out the frustration if you wanted the game to be lengthy in story or otherwise.
Sorry if this either doesn't answer your question or goes on about things unrelated. I just got back from a game design lecture so I'm in the mindset.
I haven't played Titan Souls (and probably won't based on this review.) so I guess I shouldn't speak for it.
EDIT: I would recommend Risk of Rain. I had a lot of fun with it. I'd like to hear your thoughts and criticisms of it.
My pronouns are they/them
Ps. I love my wife
I find that the only time a permadeath game has long term replay value is when there is either an overarching goal aside from the start to finish 'beating the game.' An actual sense of progression to make up for the fact that your progress in the actual game gets lost forever when you die. Otherwise, I think just adding a large amount of exploration factors and new things to discover, preferably ones that affect gameplay, would give it replay value.
Like you said, it shouldn't be too long. It would be a little ridiculous (as Super Meat Boy arguably is) to require the player to defeat a massive gauntlet of a game in one go. Depending on the game, I think if it had some form of checkpoint system you might be able to balance out the frustration if you wanted the game to be lengthy in story or otherwise.
Sorry if this either doesn't answer your question or goes on about things unrelated. I just got back from a game design lecture so I'm in the mindset.
I haven't played Titan Souls (and probably won't based on this review.) so I guess I shouldn't speak for it.
EDIT: I would recommend Risk of Rain. I had a lot of fun with it. I'd like to hear your thoughts and criticisms of it.
My pronouns are they/them
Ps. I love my wife
Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:00 am
Pheonix wrote:
Could someone explain the appeal of games where you have exactly one shot to get through every single segment of it? In my experience, all it does is make the game become exceptionally frustrating when the segments get even somewhat lengthy (the last area of Super Meat Boy comes to mind).
I generally dislike most rouge-like games for this reason. Stuff like Rogue Legacy works for me, because even if you fail you still gain money/gear/experience, so it never feels like time's being wasted. You're constantly getting just a little stronger. With something like Titan Souls, there's no progression period, so I never felt accomplished.
Something like playing XCOM in Iron Man Mode just sounds incredibly unappealing to me and that's a game I love. Sure, it's a lot scarier if one bad move means you die forever and lose twenty hours of progress, but I really don't have twenty hours of time to waste restarting a game again these days.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:34 am
I actually really dislike Rogue Legacy for that reason, at some point it feels like you're wasting your time by trying to beat the game with your current gear when you know that you could be grinding up for an advantage. This pretty much drains out most the tension I get from a permadeath game (even understanding that gear isn't strictly necessary). I have similar feelings towards the newer roguelike trend of unlocking options, since it often feels like the easier options to win are locked behind gates (or I can feel like I've exhausted all the classes at my disposal and just want to try something new already but can't). I'm a big boy and can handle looking at a list of 30 classes and picking one at random as I've done many times in older roguelikes, but I can understand the logic behind it (give players goals, create a learning curve of class complexity) so I generally don't mind unlock systems as much as I do meta progression.
There are definitely a lot of games introducing roguelike elements in places where it they don't have any business, though. Dungeon of the Endless comes to mind since it'd be a perfectly good tower defense on its own, but having to replay hours of easier stages that you've long since mastered just makes it a chore. If you want to make a roguelike your mechanics need enough depth to support it (along with mechanics that bounce off each other like traps and enemies in Spelunky) and you need enough content to make a consistently interesting random potpourri.
But ultimately it comes down to a matter of mindset. When I sit down to play a game with permadeath I generally have no intention of beating it. I don't care what the ending is, I'm not trying to mark a checkbox off my backlog. I'm sitting down to take a few pulls at the slot machine and seeing what comes out and how far I can get. I've never come close to beating any of the older text based roguelikes, but I've still enjoyed my time with them and will continue to do so.
I haven't played a ton of ironman modes but I did very much enjoy my 3 games with the new XCOM (largely quitting due to troop losses or inefficiency in economy than from directly losing). My third game was like a year or two after the first- I wasn't going to sit there and hammer at the game until I beat it. I enjoyed the intensity of my actions having consequences, and moved on after losing. I'll probably try it again in another year or two. Doing this with something story focused like Witcher2/3 seems insane and I'd never do it, though.
The closest thing I can liken it to is that these are essentially very complicated, somewhat luck driven arcade games. You aren't supposed to beat it, you're supposed to keep putting in quarters and seeing if you can get a high score. There are people out there who get seriously into beating them and writing guides and stuff, but to me the appeal has always been the adventure of seeing new stuff and pushing my luck- things that diminish when you get serious enough to actually understand the importance of everything in the game.
Edit: But going back to one hit games... the appeal is just tightness of never getting a free pass. If you ever sit down to make a level in Mario Maker it becomes very clear to you just how powerful mario powerups are (since as a designer you can probably play your own level perfectly without any powerups). Players can skip entire sections or clear sections in significantly easier ways than intended if you give them the tools. It's all counteracted by making sure they earn the right to these free passes with earlier challenges, of course, but the feeling of doing something perfectly is very different from the feeling of fudging parts. For most people seeing new stuff is better than the feeling of perfection (I personally ain't into them), but one hit games are basically going for the same feelings as time trials, speed runs, and other such challenges towards repeating a pattern perfectly.
There are definitely a lot of games introducing roguelike elements in places where it they don't have any business, though. Dungeon of the Endless comes to mind since it'd be a perfectly good tower defense on its own, but having to replay hours of easier stages that you've long since mastered just makes it a chore. If you want to make a roguelike your mechanics need enough depth to support it (along with mechanics that bounce off each other like traps and enemies in Spelunky) and you need enough content to make a consistently interesting random potpourri.
But ultimately it comes down to a matter of mindset. When I sit down to play a game with permadeath I generally have no intention of beating it. I don't care what the ending is, I'm not trying to mark a checkbox off my backlog. I'm sitting down to take a few pulls at the slot machine and seeing what comes out and how far I can get. I've never come close to beating any of the older text based roguelikes, but I've still enjoyed my time with them and will continue to do so.
I haven't played a ton of ironman modes but I did very much enjoy my 3 games with the new XCOM (largely quitting due to troop losses or inefficiency in economy than from directly losing). My third game was like a year or two after the first- I wasn't going to sit there and hammer at the game until I beat it. I enjoyed the intensity of my actions having consequences, and moved on after losing. I'll probably try it again in another year or two. Doing this with something story focused like Witcher2/3 seems insane and I'd never do it, though.
The closest thing I can liken it to is that these are essentially very complicated, somewhat luck driven arcade games. You aren't supposed to beat it, you're supposed to keep putting in quarters and seeing if you can get a high score. There are people out there who get seriously into beating them and writing guides and stuff, but to me the appeal has always been the adventure of seeing new stuff and pushing my luck- things that diminish when you get serious enough to actually understand the importance of everything in the game.
Edit: But going back to one hit games... the appeal is just tightness of never getting a free pass. If you ever sit down to make a level in Mario Maker it becomes very clear to you just how powerful mario powerups are (since as a designer you can probably play your own level perfectly without any powerups). Players can skip entire sections or clear sections in significantly easier ways than intended if you give them the tools. It's all counteracted by making sure they earn the right to these free passes with earlier challenges, of course, but the feeling of doing something perfectly is very different from the feeling of fudging parts. For most people seeing new stuff is better than the feeling of perfection (I personally ain't into them), but one hit games are basically going for the same feelings as time trials, speed runs, and other such challenges towards repeating a pattern perfectly.
Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:46 am
I had a good time in Rogue Legacy trying to finish the game with the fewest character incarnations possible, and if I failed once, no big deal. Sure, you can easily just grind up for hours and make the game much easier, but the same's true of anything with experience points. The argument about this cutting down on the tension is valid, but I personally don't feel any real tension in the rogue-likes I've played either way, for whatever reason. I either don't get into their atmosphere or world designs (I liked the game play of Binding of Isaac and detest everything else) or just don't like the way the game feels (I strongly, strongly dislike the physics in Spelunky.) Rogue Legacy controls so nicely that I'm able to overlook some of its issues, and honestly it didn't really need to have rogue-like elements at all and I'd still like it. Maybe I'd like it even more.
I think I generally dislike randomization too. I can play an arcade game like Donkey Kong all day and not get bored but I'm done with Spelunky or Isaac after a couple of runs. I get the appeal of playing these games for high scores but never personally feel like one score of mine is better than another because so much of it is due to random luck.
But anyway, Titan Souls isn't a rogue-like. Nothing's randomly generated and you don't need to redo anything but the fight you're currently on (unless you're playing Iron Man which just seems pointless here.) The challenge isn't from memorizing patterns or anything (they're all very simple fights), it's from having to make your shots in a fraction of a second with more perfect accuracy than almost anything I've played, and that mixed with one hit deaths is just irritating. Knowing exactly what to do and failing because I took .3 seconds to fire and my window was .2 and then having to die and do it all again sucks.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
I think I generally dislike randomization too. I can play an arcade game like Donkey Kong all day and not get bored but I'm done with Spelunky or Isaac after a couple of runs. I get the appeal of playing these games for high scores but never personally feel like one score of mine is better than another because so much of it is due to random luck.
But anyway, Titan Souls isn't a rogue-like. Nothing's randomly generated and you don't need to redo anything but the fight you're currently on (unless you're playing Iron Man which just seems pointless here.) The challenge isn't from memorizing patterns or anything (they're all very simple fights), it's from having to make your shots in a fraction of a second with more perfect accuracy than almost anything I've played, and that mixed with one hit deaths is just irritating. Knowing exactly what to do and failing because I took .3 seconds to fire and my window was .2 and then having to die and do it all again sucks.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition