Comments for The Surly Gamer

Comment on Quick Look – Age of Decadence by Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:01:47 +0000

I agree with blazheij, really nice commentary. I’ve been following AoD for a while and seen quite a few preview videos, and so far yours has been my favorite. Very nice review for a first timer!

Comment on Quick Look – Age of Decadence by blazheij

blazheij — Thu, 23 May 2013 14:03:30 +0000

I’m actually impressed how well you did on your first try. I enjoyed the commentary too and wouldn’t mind watching more AoD videos, if you ever decide to make them.

Comment on Quick Look – Age of Decadence by Centurion

Centurion — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:07:28 +0000

Thanks! I shot the video immediately after downloading. The only time I checked the forums or FAQ was when I couldn’t locate key binds in the options menu. Some of these things I probably just missed, but others could probably benefit from a tutorial.

I appreciate the feedback!

Comment on Quick Look – Age of Decadence by Centurion

Centurion — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:03:44 +0000

Thanks for the info! The video was shot during my first session with the game. I attempted to do it justice, but it was all first impression commentary.

Comment on Quick Look – Age of Decadence by blazheij

blazheij — Wed, 22 May 2013 20:24:06 +0000

Cool video. Just a few quick pointers:
1) When you pick a background you can actually still tweak the attributes.
2) Blue squares means you can move there, green squares means it’s in your range and you can attack people standing there.
3) Skill checks aren’t random rolls. Each check has an assigned threshold value. If your skill is that high or higher you pass, if it’s lower you fail.
4) Skill checks that use multiple skills use the sum of the two to determine their threshold value (though you still need to mee a minimal value for both skills involved).
5) When the merchant talked about the guild, he was talking about the nearby building of the Commercium (the one with the big pillars).

Comment on Quick Look – Age of Decadence by Dragatus

Dragatus — Wed, 22 May 2013 20:17:46 +0000

Just a few quick points:
1) During character creation, when you pick a background you can modify the attributes.
2) Skills checks aren’t random. If you meet a threshold value you pass otherwise you fail.
3) Combined skill checks that use two skills depend on the sum of both skills (though you still need them both to be above a low threshold).
4) When the merchant talked about a guild, he meant the building of the merchant’s guild, the Commercium, which is standing right there next to the merchant plaza.

Comment on Bioshock Infinite: Over Analysis Does Not A Great Game Make (SPOILERS) by dthegamer

dthegamer — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:54:56 +0000

I feel like adding that the WHOLE game Elizabeth and Booker have a weird feel to them. It was during the Vox Rebellion that I looked at my boyfriend and said “They don’t seem like a romantic couple at all.” This is kind of big since a lot of games that have a female lead with a male lead = romance… He replied, “Yeah, I get a daughter-father vibe from how they interact.” We lol’d when it became more and more evident that our thoughts were correct.

Comment on Bioshock Infinite: Over Analysis Does Not A Great Game Make (SPOILERS) by dthegamer

dthegamer — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:42:45 +0000

I played the game and mostly agree.

In terms of story, it was a very solid start. What really bothered me was how the racial themes mostly died down and seemed rushed in the middle/end. This game could have done a lot more with it, as one could see from previews in 2010, but that’s just one urk.

Another urk of mine is that somehow this game has an original thought or original ending… anyone who has been overexposed to time travel/parallel world stories will agree it was VERY predictable. The reveal that Comstock = Booker was evident the moment Booker freaked out and murdered Comstock. I just think the game is alright, but its not rewriting the way game stories are told like a lot of people in the gaming industry seem to be insinuating.

Bioshock 1 had excellent story and ambiance. Bioshock Infinite has an okay story with an ambiance that just kind of gives up halfway through.

Comment on Bioshock Infinite: Over Analysis Does Not A Great Game Make (SPOILERS) by Kiore

Kiore — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:04:51 +0000

Some of that is fair, but there are some story elements talked about as you move around with Elizabeth and a lot of commentary especially in the wounded knee areas, etc (you may have seen those).

I think the story is very much both things you mentioned, I think he probably started with “omg what if you were both simultaenously the protagonist and the antagonist at the same time!” and worked out the rest from there.

I think I like both “devices” as they were in story telling, take songs for example, some artists definitely take the approach to be more general so people can draw parallels with their own life/experiences and fill in holes with details that fit them (Dave Matthews does this quite a bit), or do you prefer something like Coheed and Cambria that take a very literal/story approach that draws on certain characters and excludes a persons own story (not saying the listener can’t relate, but you get my point).

I think I like a world with both!

Comment on Bioshock Infinite: Over Analysis Does Not A Great Game Make (SPOILERS) by Centurion

Centurion — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:38:56 +0000

I get your point, but I was able to experience the story, only as a movie instead of a game. It’s not like I just read some spoilers and drew my conclusions from that. In some ways I may have even experienced it in a more cohesive and attentive manner than someone who played through it. I think I can at least make a case for it, as I experienced it without large spans of combat time between story beats, and without having to worry about controlling the character. All of my undivided attention was on the story, without pause or interruption.

I think Infinite brought up a lot of interesting points and has a good story, but I can’t help feeling a bit disappointed in it. I think Levine (like J.J.) intentionally leaves these paradoxes and questions spinning around in the minds of his audience for various reasons. Maybe it’s because he thinks the truth would never live up to our own theories. Or perhaps it’s because he knows that the mind recoils at puzzles without solutions, and that we’ll all fill in those blanks for him (or try to). Why write the entire story when you can leave bits and pieces out, allow your audience do the work for you, creating controversy and buzz in the process. It’s brilliant in a sense, but it still feels like a manipulation to me.

It’s the difference between Inception’s spinning top and finding out exactly who Keyser Soze is at the end of The Usual Suspects. I just happen to prefer the latter.